Post navigation

The Family Liaison Officer.

I chanced upon a remark in my recent reading that struck me as so callous, so utterly devoid of empathy, that I stopped short. Who had made this remark? A Family Liaison Officer!

As is my wont, I immediately started researching the qualities needed to be a Family Liaison Officer, and the training involved. The first surprise was the apparently scant attention to training given back in the early 2000s when this particular officer was trained. Even in 2006 a mere three days initially, of ‘team building’ and general communication skills, followed by another four days to ensure that all participants were fully aware of the requirements of the ACPO (2003) Family Liaison Strategy Manual.

It is universally acknowledged that the Family Liaison Officer’s role is one of the most sensitive within the Police Force – you are dealing, on a very intimate daily basis with people who have found themselves in the maelstrom of traumatic events, generally involving the unexplained loss of someone very dear to them. They are not only grieving, but may be the subject of unwanted media intrusion or worse, media speculation that they may have played some part in the events. As a policeman it is your duty to report any suspicions you may have of family members – you are still an investigating officer – but you are also there as a professional hand holder, to explain police procedures, to keep the family informed, even to deal with such mundane tasks as helping to cancel credit cards where appropriate, to make the tea if necessary and to have an ever ready supply of Kleenex.

As a human being, you must surely have empathy for the loss the family have suffered particularly where there is no question of suspicion of any member of the family, and to reassure them that the Police are doing everything possible to resolve the situation. That some officers do a magnificent juggling act with these demands is exemplified here. I would have thought that the very last thing you would do is publicly decry the efforts of the Police and say that there were ‘fundamental errors’ in the way the case was approached, ‘witnesses not approached’, ‘insufficient searching done’ nor that your force appeared to ‘not have a clue’. What could be more callous than to announce to the family that their missing loved one ‘could still be up there‘ – referring to the area where they disappeared?

Can you imagine if, God forbid, your daughter had gone missing, never to be found again, being told by the one Policeman you had been encouraged to trust and lean on in your time of need, that his force was effectively incompetent, and that your daughter might have been found? It must be heartbreaking. Sadly, to this day, the parents of Ruth Wilson still don’t know what happened to their daughter. She has never been found. However, and curiously, they don’t seem to share the view of this family liaison officer that the force was remiss in their approach to the search.

’Most police forces didn’t treat cases like this seriously and people like us had to do our own publicity. Surrey police were one of the most positive forces. They came out that very night with sniffer dogs and helicopters with heat-seeking equipment. But the phenomenon of missing youngsters wasn’t a big feature of life back then.’

But then the date of this Family Liaison Officer’s callous remarks are significant. 7 years after Ruth Wilson vanished one day, never to be seen again – and eighteen months after he left the force. He was seeking a new career, as celebrity investigator, the must-have talking head whenever there was a major crime. The man with an inexhaustible supply of ideas as to how to turn crime into entertainment…is that why:

‘The refusal of the Wilsons to make themselves the centre of the story has certainly contributed to the lower profile of the case – later on they refused to appear on a game show where the audience would have been given the chance to vote for the next course of action taken by the family in the search for their daughter.’

I have no idea, in fact I cannot begin to think who on earth could have imagined, that taking the misery of one benighted family and turning it into a game show was the way to help them. The mind boggles.

This particular family liaison officer was, of course, Mark Williams-Thomas, who now sees himself as the celebrity policeman du jour; you can go to him if you don’t feel able to or want to, go to our national police force. He has a long line of criticisms of various police forces and their ‘not a clue’ attitude to policing. Now independent, Mark can be particularly vocal about current issues…

“The report went to the superintendent, but it was never signed to indicate that it had been seen. I got no actual response at all, other than the report being handed back to me. To the best of my knowledge, no action was taken.”

Not just Police forces, foreign and home grown, he criticises anyone who dares to comment on where his methods are taking our long established legal system. He demands their censure.

What has sparked his censure of this respected barrister?

She has long been pointing out the dangers present in our Family courts which have adopted a ‘therapeutic jurisprudence’ approach, resulting in the restriction of the right to due process, the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty, the right to be tried in public, the right to confront one’s accusers, and the right to ‘equality of arms’ (that is, not to be tried under significantly less advantageous conditions that those enjoyed by one’s opponent). Other protections, such as restrictions on the use of hearsay evidence, the right to consult the expert of one’s choice, and even the right to communicate in confidence with one’s lawyers or one’s MP, have been placed in second place to the sense that ‘neutral professionals’ were working in the best interests of the child and should not be hampered by outdated technicalities.

Those who have seen their families rent asunder, new born babies snatched from their Mother’s arms following allegations by those ‘neutral professionals’ made in secret courts, or seen loved ones secretly deprived of their liberty by the Court of Protection, have long hailed her a heroine. She is an expert in the field. Yesterday she penned a cogent and well argued article pointing out that this therapeutic jurisprudence was being applied to the field of historic sex abuse. She criticised the methods that those involved with the current Yewtree investigation – which of course includes Mark Williams-Thomas, are using. She pointed out the inherent dangers to our legal system.

Within hours the Press Officer for the NSPCC was demanding that her article be either reworded or removed. They threatened to ‘approach news desks’ (what with, we know not!). Other commenters were more graphic, calling for her ‘to be raped’ and ‘hunted into obscurity’. It is heretical to call into question the methods by which the modern moral crusaders attempt to define abuse. Williams-Thomas himself called for her professional body to intervene – because she called for debate on where this new mode of justice is taking us?

I am reminded for some reason of Henry VIII. He was hugely critical of the Catholic church when they refused to reform themselves in line with his demands. He became hysterical with those who criticised him, denouncing them as heretics, demanding their heads roll, or sacking their homes and churches, as he rebuilt a ‘new’ church of which he was head, that developed new beliefs and rules and regulations.

However, it would be unfair to draw a comparison between the majestic figure of Henry VIII and Williams-Thomas; after all, he was but a pathological egotist whose only interest was in having his own way, achieving his own ends. He had no empathy with those whose lives he ruined along the way.

I love the one comment on the video so far:“she looks like a﻿ drug addicted hooker”

Mina FieldMay 19, 2013 at 00:44

@Moor LarkinGood god. Couldn’t they have at least got a heads up from the Aussie police or skyped her or something before forking out for that trip !

rabbitawayMay 19, 2013 at 09:23

@Moor/Mina – She didn’t report it at the time bse she thought ‘no one would believe her’ – well, guess what ? I don’t and I think the comment is spot on there Moor. BTW did you notice how the Aussie presenter issued the disclaimer about no payment being made ! The cops are doing nicely out of this, trips to Aussie and so on. How come the NSPCC helpline trainee cleaner didn’t just ring her ?

I see that Sir Jimmy’s friends have been offered counselling – but some have a problem with this – help us out here good folks send your comments to Jimmy’s local paper …… I have here’s mine :

rabbitaway

9:00 AM on 16/05/2013

Two police forces have now admitted that they have not fully investigated the allegations made against Sir Jimmy Savile. No court of law would find this man guilty on the ‘evidence’ produced so far. West Yorkshire Police found no proof of any criminal behaviour only unsubstantiated ‘gossip’ and ‘rumours’. Surely a man who gave so much to so many deserves better than this ! Please read Appendix 12 of the Pollard Report if you want to know how this thing started. I send my very best wishes to the people who have stuck by Sir Jimmy. A growing number of people are questioning the matter and sooner or later the truth will come out. In the meantime, anyone suffering genuine distress deserves all the help and support they can get.

@rabbitawayIt’s noticeable that the BBC are now ratcheting up the pressure on the various Hospitals conducting their Inquiries just now. Difficult to see any of them daring to step out of line.

“Twenty-nine of Jimmy Savile’s victims in West Yorkshire were abused in the county’s hospitals, figures show. The new information follows last week’s publication of a West Yorkshire Police report into its dealings with the former BBC entertainer.”http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-22525752

There seems a developing strategy in the police reports to express it in this sort of way:“Savile is guilty but nobody told us at the time”

I imagine the hospitals will all take the same approach.

rabbitawayMay 16, 2013 at 11:33

@Moor – well THEY would wouldn’t they – the faceless administrators and so what ? The moor idiotic, nonsensical shit they produce the easier it will be to tear apart at a later date. Shame, that it’s wasting all our hard earned tho’ is it not ?? Money, money, money

rabbitawayMay 15, 2013 at 17:12

West Yorkshire police have released a further statement (see below). It mentions the fact that some of those interviewed had NOT provided their date of birth (kinda important bit of info that !). They also provide further on the 5 year old saying that a 5 and 45 year old were assaulted at High Royds Psychiatric Hospital. The Ilkley Gazette describes only one ‘attack’ here – can this mean that the 5 yr old was with the 45 yr old and he attacked them both !!! How likely is that ? Give me strength here guys and gals !!!

I read an unrelated comment on Facebook yesterday in which someone observed that historically those that start witch-hunts usually have the experience of having the witch-hunt turn on them. We can but hope. This is good news, along with the admission by the Yorkshire plods that they got nuthin’ too. All the bleating by Frances Jennings isn’t going to change the fact that there never was anything, and the plods and the MSM have been chasing a chimera, created by a bunch of “emotionally disturbed” women (this is their own description of themselves, so don’t call your lawyers, ladies.)

rabbitawayMay 14, 2013 at 15:44

@Mewsical – ‘Carl’ on Moor’s blog just told us that an interview ‘tween Radio 4 and one of Jimmy Savile’s beneficiaries was ‘pulled’ because the interviewer got ‘aggressive’. There is NO media coverage of the fact that these brave soul/s are defending the claims made against Jimmy in Court. We can still be hopeful though, I think that, sooner or later, those to blame for this farce will get what they deserve.

Jonathan MasonMay 14, 2013 at 16:41

As I pointed out before, in the 70′s the Yorkshire plods were much more concerned about the Yorkshire Ripper than Savile starting in 1975. On 5 February 1977 Sutcliffe attacked the first victim Irene Richardson, a Chapeltown prostitute, in Roundhay Park. Savile’s penthouse apartment overlooked Roundhay Park.

rabbitawayMay 13, 2013 at 15:52

Yes ….. and the next article I came to advised us of his ‘sudden’ retirement !

rabbitawayMay 13, 2013 at 15:37

Blimey – did he really say that …….

Back in 2006, Terry Grange, the Association Of Chief Police Officers’ spokesman on child protection, said having sex with children should not be classed as paedophilia if the child was aged between 13 and 15.

Three years later, Professor John Spencer, a law fellow at Selwyn College, Cambridge, argued on BBC radio that the age of consent should be reduced to 13.

I changed the wording of my comment – you know how easily offended some people are and I don’t want this removed ……OneTermDave3 days agoJack, do you think that the accused should be kept out of the Media unless a Judge authorises it?

Jack Rivlin3 days ago

Yes, I think so.

rabbitaway22 minutes ago

If you agree that the accused must be afforded protection then perhaps you should write an article condemning the expose on the late Sir Jimmy Savile. His ‘name’ was released destroying his good name in the eye’s of some. I trust that your sense of fair mindedness extends itself to the dead who are not in a position to defend themselves

So the boys lost at the shafta’s … shameBTW in case anyone doesn’t know this you can bypass the telegraph paywall by removing their cookies ….simples ….Big Smiley all

AnonymousMay 12, 2013 at 12:14

What Would You Do?

What would you do?

Sunday Times article today discusses the Estate of SJS and says that the Beneficiaries (including two family members) are wanting to fight in Court against the claims that have been made. Alan Collins of Pannone wants an Out of Court Settlement. Its seems the BBC want to settle out of court also to “save the victims further distress”.

Would you risk the wrath of the nation/press by going to Court to out any Liars OR would you settle out of court knowing there would be some liars getting a nice fat cheque but at least you would not suffer the awful backlash of “making victims suffer more”

I would hate to have make this choice – if any are reading this, maybe we could give some advice?

LucozadeMay 12, 2013 at 12:55

Anonymous,

Re: “What would you do?”

There are obviously a lot of liars involved here, perhaps the only way they will be outed is by going to court. They can’t let the newspapers and their stupid readers dictate their actions, especially when they are so ill informed, and Alan Collins from Pannone’s opinion is not worth a jot.

I think anyone wanting a payout should be made to justify why they deserve a payout and to just settle ‘out of court’ makes him look guilty, when these accusations haven’t even been investigated and he has had no trial.

The media and Alan Collins are using their power and influence and lies to ‘shame’ everyone into towing the line and not question this farce, taking those seeking a piece of his estate to court could be the chance to expose it for what it is – just giving payouts no questions asked could be another nail in the coffin.

This is just my opinion, personally, if I was in this position I want to fight, but I suppose it’s whatever they think feels best for them that counts….

Mina FieldMay 12, 2013 at 13:06

They absolutely should defend the claims, yes.As for the BBC – it too should be defending the claims. As far as I know the BBC has not been able to find any corroboration whatsoever of the allegations regarding its premises or its knowledge.

Jonathan MasonMay 12, 2013 at 13:21

I saw the other day that Lord Patten already said that the BBC would pay out to Hall “victims.”

I find it unbelievable that every “victim” of Savile has not made a sworn statement under oath to the investigating officers. No, I believe it, but it is disgraceful.

In the case of Stuart Hall the prosecutors said:

We prosecuted Stuart Hall because the evidence of the victims clearly established a pattern of behaviour that was unlawful and for which no innocent explanation could be offered.

His victims did not know each other and almost two decades separated the first and last assaults but almost all of the victims, including one who was only nine at the time of the assault, provided strikingly similar accounts.

However, there does not seem to me to be any similarity at all in the account of the nine year old, from what we know of it.

Jonathan MasonMay 12, 2013 at 13:37

Oops, I missed out the final part of the prosecutor’s quote”

Whether in public or private, Hall would first approach under friendly pretences and then bide his time until the victim was isolated. He can only be described as an opportunistic predator.”

In the case of the nine-year-old there is some reason to think that the brother was in the room. If that was the case then he did not isolate his victim and so the incident did not match the alleged pattern of behaviour. Perhaps it is all too easy to perceive patterns where there are none.

LucozadeMay 12, 2013 at 14:05

Jonathan Mason,

Re: “Perhaps it is all to easy to perceive patterns where there are none”

Exactly, there are only so many ways to ‘sexually abuse’ someone, or approach someone and most of the accusations came out AFTER the accusations of forcing a kiss on a 13 year old, touching the boob of a 17 year old and touching a 9 year old inappropriately were reported in the press. And who knows where they came from?

I wonder if you were to describe how you met your wife and Anna were to decribe how she met her husband, and pretend you are both taking about the *same* person, would some believe they could perceive a ‘pattern’?

Also, i’m starting to agree more and more with what Barbara Hewson said, though perhaps she could have been a little less blunt….

LucozadeMay 12, 2013 at 13:21

Anonymous,

Re: “It seems the BBC want to settle out of court also to ‘save the victims further distress”

I’m sure what the BBC are really concerned about is their public image, keeping themselves out the firing line and saving money. This “save ‘victims’ (when the ‘victims’ are by no means proven) further distress” is being used by the creators of this “scandal” and the solicitors as emotional blackmail and to manipulate, if no one stands up to them now they will get away with it again and again.

I think when it starts to become apparent that some of Jimmy Savile’s family are fighting the claims the perception of some of the public, the ones that matter, will start to change. At the moment it’s being treated like it’s a done deal, he’s guilty, end of. That’s how the police and the media have aimed to present it and people just assume it’s true, but none of these accusations have actually been checked out have they?

At the moment some are probably thinking, oh well if even his own family believe it, that’s that, probably guilty, if they fight it, that’ll show they don’t infact believe it, and help show that a lot of what they’d previously been led to believe wasn’t quite true.

If they’ve got the money I think they should fight, there are loads of liars involved here – those people don’t deserve a penny….

rabbitawayMay 12, 2013 at 13:59

@Lucozade – One problem is that the fact that the family/friends of JS are going to court is NOT being published in the MSM. The only mainstream to mention this so far is THE Sunday Times but the full article is pay to view so even hardened pro Jimmy’s like myself won’t pay so why should your average browser ! Let’s see if it’s reported next week ! Big smiley !

“Would you risk the wrath of the nation/press by going to Court to out any Liars OR would you settle out of court knowing there would be some liars getting a nice fat cheque but at least you would not suffer the awful backlash of “making victims suffer more”’

I agree that this is probably what will happen – what is a few taxpayer millions going to liars, when the alternative is, as you say, the possibility of making a genuine, if there are any, victim suffer further, or alternatively, making the reputation of the corporation suffer even further as the case drags on and on?

I particularly savoured alan Collins’ comments that defending the action would make ‘the vulnerable suffer’ – considering that he was suing for the money that should have gone to charities for the ‘vulnerable’ it was a comment beyond parody.

rabbitawayMay 12, 2013 at 13:51

@Anna – Though I for one cannot see how any of Collins’ ‘victims’ will get past his own first ‘hurdle’ …..

Alan Collins of Pannone Solicitors says that victims if they are to succeed with a compensation claim need to clear four hurdles:

Prove the allegation of abuse;Prove that whoever they are suing is liable in law;Prove that they have suffered harm;Prove that it is fair to bring a claim now.

LucozadeMay 12, 2013 at 14:27

Anonymous, Mina, Anna, Rabbitaway,

No one should just be able to day someone touched them and just expect a hand out no questions asked. If it there was a genuine ‘victim’, i’m sorry, but I think they still need to show some evidence for that and be prepared to be questioned if they want any of Jimmy Savile’s estate, they are lucky enough that there has been no investigation or trial. And why do they want money from his estate, could this not be seen as a possible motive for making the allegation in the first place?

Mina FieldMay 12, 2013 at 14:50

@ LucozadeCouldn’t agree more. Each claim conducted on its own merits. What could be fairer than that?

LucozadeMay 12, 2013 at 15:03

“One beneficiary and long-term friend of Savile, Sylvia Nicol, said: “If all the money from his estate went to defend him I wouldn’t mind. If the money went to the claimants without a defence I think that is very wrong.”

Good for her. They need to provide evidence that they are ‘victims’, or at the very least that they are not telling downright lies. To shame Jimmy Savile’s beneficiaries for defending him, when i’m sure it’s what most others would want to do in that situation is bullying and emotional blackmail as far as I see it. They are expecting 3 million pound, was that not nearly all he’d left?

I think there’s a huge chance he could be innocent, I hope they fight.

rabbitawayMay 12, 2013 at 15:04

Here Here !

LucozadeMay 12, 2013 at 15:11

Mina Field,

Re: “Each claim conducted on it’s own merits. What could be fairer than that?”

Exactly, it’s the right thing to do and if they complainents are actually telling the truth, then what is there to fear? They’ve already told those stories to the police or NSPCC. It has to be done….

Jonathan MasonMay 12, 2013 at 18:44

Yes, of course each case should be looked at individually.

Here’s a little story I posted in The Guardian a couple of days ago:

When I was hitch hiking when I was about 17, one time a man put his leg on my thigh, but I brushed it away and told him to drop me off at the next junction. Nothing more happened. A friend of mine had a similar situation, except that the guy drove into a field in the middle of nowhere and demanded to perform a blow job on my friend. My friend complied as he did not want to be left in the middle of nowhere. In neither case was the driver a well-known entertainer.

Now many of you probably believe that every single one of these men who made passes at younger men in this manner at a time when this was illegal, should now be rounded up and imprisoned if they can be identified. Well, great, except that it will be difficult to identify them, unless they happen to be well-known via the media, or politicians, or pop singers.

But these type of experiences were so common and universal at the time that we had no alternative but to pull ourselves together and deal with it, otherwise the whole country would have become one large lunatic asylum, or perhaps a pirates den of vigilante justice.

But perhaps now the time has come for all those motorists who preyed on hitch-hikers in the sixties and seventies to be brought to justice. Many of these men will now be in their seventies and eighties and probably well-heeled and ripe for a shakedown. The M1 was first opened in 1962 and the motorway network expanded rapidly bringing this crime wave with it. Surely it is not too late to stand up for the victims. There must still be records of the names of unmarried men who owned Ford Cortinas at the time or drove them for their firms, and I believe that if I was given a list, I could point a finger at a few names. And then if I could get a few more men of my age to join in, we would have them nailed, and they could never prove their innocence. We would let them plea bargain, too. Either they could pay up, or they could name others. This could be big!

I’m not sure if anyone has picked up on this before but I was not aware that the NSPCC themselves were conducting interviews with SJS’s so called ‘victims’. I wanted to check what GVAV actually said about investigating or rather NOT investigating the claims made and this is what I found …

FROM Giving victims a voice

1.9 Not all the victims who have come forward have been interviewed by police. However the patterns and similarities of the offences and behaviours that have come to light so far have given police and NSPCC staff an informed view that most people have provided compelling accounts of what happened to them. It should be recognised that others will also have experienced abuse but have chosen not to speak out.1.10 We therefore consider it pragmatic to present this report in as factual a way as possible given that the information provided has not been corroborated. Further investigation seeking corroboration of individual allegations, the majority dating backmany years, is considered disproportionate when there is no prospect of criminal proceedings

So, they will not seek ‘corroboration’ ……..I’m just ruminating is all …..

rabbitawayMay 11, 2013 at 14:50

Well done Moor Larkin for picking up on the fact that the media continues to report that Katrina Rose was assaulted by JS in his ‘Belgravia flat’ We know that Jim had a flat in Regents Park but – Belgravia – I think not. Fair enough that the scumbag tabloids make this error BUT A SOLICITORS office my word …!

NOTE Pannone’s were touting for business before Exposure even aired …….

Mina FieldMay 11, 2013 at 15:54

@rabbitaway

Re Pannone, touting for business. I suggest you do a bit of reading re Alan Collins, solicitor currently at Pannone. Google ACAL (association of child abuse lawyers) and you will have a moment of deja vu as you recognise the ‘abuselawyers.com’ (or similar) that popped up in one of Moor Larkin’s pages.

@Rocky Raccoon (no relation) The thing about that – and the same goes for the creepy Mr Collins from Pannone – is that the ‘distress caused by WYP’s failure to acknowledge their own part in the ‘crimes’ compounds the claimants’ suffering and increases the quantum of damages sought.

MistlethrushMay 11, 2013 at 10:52

Help, what has happened to the blog and the comments procedure and format?

Er, hopefully I’ve improved it…..what are you seeing Mistlethrush, I’m monitoring it to see if there are any problems…..?

Anna RaccoonMay 11, 2013 at 11:01

Mistlethrush Er, hopefully I’ve improved it, but it does seem to be slower! I was hoping to sort out the complaints about comments appearing in the wrong order…..

MistlethrushMay 11, 2013 at 11:06

Anna Raccoon Mistlethrush Thanks Anna but thats not the issue I’m having – it sounds as though this might be a problem related to just my computer because I seem to be on a whole new format here. The ‘recent comments’ list at the foot of the page no longer operates, and the comments are in a linear list powered by something called livefyre. Had to create an account. Might have to try re-booting !

Christ Well done Christ ?? I was banging on about this yesterday. Surely those involved in the making of a tv program urging ‘victims’ to come forward will be barred from receiving any monies ! I think a certain ‘c’ word might be in mucho use should this NOT be the case. Take your pick from the 2 ‘c’ words I’m thinking of, one is significantly longer than the other ! Cheers Chris.

rabbitawayMay 11, 2013 at 09:29

@Jonathan Mason …..’that berk’ who raised more than £40,000,000 for charity had his own ‘way with words’, He was an entertainer and millions loved him. How many lives did that voice save – ‘Clunk Click every trip’ !

Rocky Raccoon (no relation)May 11, 2013 at 06:22

BBC TV News has been carrying an interview with a victim from Duncroft calling the West Yorkshire Police report a whitewash. The victim is interviewed in silhouette with an actor’s voice but the report begins with a photo of the victim plainly in view cosying up to Jimmy Savile at Duncroft in the 1970′s. It was one of the photos that were on Friends ReUnited the photo, it along with the female’s name has appeared in press interviews and can be found online…rather odd. BBC online rather than state she wishes to be annonymous states she cannot be named.

PS. Previously in the BBC Panorama programme the female’s face in the Duncroft photo was ‘blobbed’ to make it obscure.

@Ho Hum – yes but this particular ‘brass’ is covered in the stuff. An idea of formatting itself in my brain – I wonder WHO will gain as a result of these ‘operations’ ? In due course someone will, I’m sure request information as to what monies are paid to whom in terms of contracts to provide child protection, and investigation ? I’m sure you all know where I’m going with this ! I’ll just keep refreshing that companies house page

So – more ‘victims’ came forward after Yewtree was published. Op Newgreen shows 76 ‘crimes against 68 people whilst yewtree shows 34 ‘crimes’ in the West Yorks area. The ‘victims’ age rage has changed to include a 5 year old (Yewtree starts at 8).

I wonder what will be made of the anonymous 1998 letter and the 1980′s investigation that never was that has been referred to the IPCC for an ‘independent review’ ?

Thanks for this Anna. Read the original article – it is remarkable how…. ahem…. selective the press were in their coverage of this. I am always leery of hysteria and Operation Yewtree is practically a dictionary definition. In saying that, I’m not sure I agree with all of Ms Hewstons conclusions but I bloody well think she has a right to express them and NOT be burned at the stake.

Now going to keep up with ‘Spiked’ – looks like my kind of magazine!

Rocky Raccoon (no relation)May 10, 2013 at 14:15

Ironic that Mark William-Thomas makes claims about his involvement with the Jonathon King case, brought about by info from Max Clifford for which Surrey Police thanked him. A case on which MWT built his celeb status that led in 2013 to him to claiming he was working in close liason with Operation Yewtree, providing names and info which have led to arrests including a well known publicist.

rabbitawayMay 10, 2013 at 13:57

I’ve done my bit …..let’s see what happens here – the other side are already out in force and the author of the article looks about 15 …….!!!

West Yorkshire Police today released their own report into what they knew about the late Sir Jimmy Savile . Operation Newgreen found NO evidence that SJS had commited any criminal acts whilst he was alive. That they now accept that 76 ‘crimes’ happened on their patch, is more a question of peer pressure than anything else as far as I am concerned. Before anyone comes back with the, covering their own backs argument, you’ll be wasting your time with me. I want proof of wrong doing before I condemn anyone.

These guys probably have a payment contract linked by the advertisers to the number of comments the article can harvest……..

Reading the linky-wording leaves me assuming there will soon be a campaign to reopen the News of the World ………

rabbitawayMay 10, 2013 at 13:00

There will be a massive problem created when the powers that be, finally accept that they got it wrong. All that money and time they have wasted is going to make the M.P’s expenses scandal look like pigeon feed in comparison. How and what will bring this about, I don’t know, but we must not dismiss the probability that this will happen. The ‘evidence’ for the ‘prosecution’ in the case of JS is so tainted, no court would have convicted him – period. It’s early days, but I honestly believe that this thing can be turned around. I think that you will find that the thing that kicked started all this, will be it’s undoing – MONEY !

JoBlowMay 10, 2013 at 17:07

I agree. And remember that if any claims are false then serious fraud is being perpetuated against the taxpayer, BBC and Savile’s heirs.

rabbitawayMay 10, 2013 at 17:14

@Jo Blow – careful now – Jim didn’t have any ‘heirs’ but we get your meaning …

EllenMay 11, 2013 at 18:10

Try telling that to WYP………… they are not interested. GGGGRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!???!??!??!!??!?!

@ rabbitaway.I belatedly comment you must be a sweetheart —but for all my intellectual pretentions at heart I prefer ‘Welsh Cricket’ —baseball bats in the pub car park before or after drinking time has finished.

rabbitawayMay 10, 2013 at 21:23

Blimey – but I can top that – my friend once had a pool table thrown at him

Like most of my prose not original —-borrowed from something I heard on Radio4 this week

Elena ‘andcartMay 10, 2013 at 11:48

I actually got a Comment published on that Barbara Hewston article, and the last time I looked I only had 20 Red Arrows. Not even in the top ten Worst Rated. Must try harder next time.

Still can’t believe Mark Williams Thomas said that.

miss mildredMay 10, 2013 at 11:17

Looking thoughtfully at the last few posts, we are in a very spooky era where sexual matters are concerned. We have a younger generation who can look at extreme porn any old time they like on the internet. They can try some of it out if they want….yuk! Some young ladies get so drunk in public that anyone from 10 to 100 could interfere with them, and they would never know they have been ‘got at’. Pop stars who have entertained young ladies at their hotels, and not inspected the documentation first, re age, must surely be pondering…..me next? The thought of this hunt for compensation going on for years and years sickens me. Can there be an end to it? Knowing appetite for money and salacious MSM articles is never ending. As soon as the It’s a Knockout man plead guilty. Came the announcement that civil cases would be started. Then indignation that his house had gone over to his wife recently, as if she is guilty too. All this confirmed my suspicions that the money chain is at the bottom of the whole business. The Saville affair has, so far, produced so little, apart from wrecking his reputation. Maybe the accusations of maligning the dead spurred ‘them’ on to the ‘other’ efforts that are besmirching those still alive, with money pots to pick over.Ms was brave to put in the AOC lowering. The crackling of jerking knees, in response, is not unexpected! Heretic, thumbscrews, set the bonfire. Strange that I thought we had free speech. Those who set themselves up as destroyers…..maybe look at Cromwell Henry V111(TV coming soon) hatchet man who followed his own victims, eventually, to a gory end.

rabbitawayMay 10, 2013 at 11:30

Well said Miss Mildred especially that last sentence !

rabbitawayMay 10, 2013 at 10:59

I see that we are not being given the chance to comment on this in the MSM so I tagged this into last weeks Telegraph piece

just now

West Yorkshire police have released their report – Operation Newgreen. They found no evidence of any wrong doing on Sir Jimmy’s behalf whilst he was alive. They have succumbed to peer pressure nothing more and nothing less, in accepting that 67 ‘crimes’ were commited on their patch. A sad state of affairs when one is tried and found guilty postumously. We should be afraid – very afraid of where all this is heading.

The truth is “Savile” represents three generations or more – it’s a fifty year period of time that is being destroyed and demonised. Anyone old and wise enough to know otherwise is to all intents and purposes ‘an abuser by proxy’. All those little boys and girls once ‘tickled by Grandad’ were ‘sexually abused’ by ‘predatory paedophiles’, any relationship with an older man means ‘groomed’ and ‘protecting innocence’ means graphic sex education at Junior School.What will we be left with? – well, those of you lucky enough to be courting ‘old age’ can at least be assured you won’t be around to see where this is really heading.

Minions who had go from sad or outraged to elated and clapping with the click of a finger, barristers and paralegals who just tweet and ‘lolz’ with the rest of the idiots, graduates who really believe working for free at the end of a costly degree is what they worked towards, an entire generation who still class themselves as the children they behave like in their mid-20s – this is HAPPENING NOW.

You are on the money Chris Barrett on both points you make —Savile does represent a ‘truth’ that spans much of my life though quite what that truth really is I am not so sure I know —–but I reckon its more than amounts to the claim after he died that he was a perv.But yea your second point (I won’t link the two coz thats conspiracy theory stuff —–about the likes of Savile providing a distraction while pockets are picked) about coolie wages for the present generation of graduates is spot on to my own certain knowledge be they Oxbridge, Red brick or Plate Glass. I think you might find a answer why if you look at ‘The Third Way by Andrew Giddens now Barron Giddens from whom Tony Blair borrowed much. At some time in the late 80s /early 90s the idea of a globalised economy came into existence —not much debate about it —the idea of cheap goods was a major selling point —but actually it went a little further than that as we perhaps belatedly come to realise—-globalisation of labour —–and Blair/Giddens ideas was to ‘skill’ the English labour force to compete globally —the Brits coming out near the top of the global food chain for jobs —-you remember edooocation edooocation edooocation —-you might also recollect the violent demonstartions at World Trade Organisation meetings and how they were reported. Well things haven’t quite worked out as planned it might seem because the global market isn’t panting to employ the present generation of UK School and University leavers —-well not most but yes a few who have international skills —now me I was never clever enough to see the objectives or outcomes of global or national economic policy —but I ‘felt’ there was a new model afoot —too late for an old codger like me to respond personally and in any event I like picking my nose and contemplating the universe —-but yea a few steps taken by me to skill those I have responsibility for —fluency in a foreign language (no that doesn’t mean English with a foreign accent), the social skills to ‘fit’ anwhere (don’t order egg and chips if one is abroad unless you are on the fish and chip costas), an education that mirrored more what I thought the a cultured foreigner might receive than a little Englander (yea possibly a bit more than being ‘trained’ to do a job)’ —Moor Larkin might quote that pessimistic little Englander at me ,Philip Larkin as he has above at my efforts but I reckon thats all 1950s critique —well I am sure he knows more than I ever will about Law, Economics, Savile , Parenting and much else beside and is probably well ahead of me in predicting outcomes —but let me postulate —yea looks like a generation betrayed—thats just one aspect but the real worry is political instability —particularly it’s extent –should one see political instability? Well I wonder, Immigration taking centre stage politically, withdrawal from the EEC (wot can’t compete with all our skills?) the disaffection with main stream political parties Europe wide. the rise of the right in the worst economically hit countries such as Greece, Global Trade imbalances and a currency system that doesn’t work save competitive devaluation is implemented, a moribund banking system propped up with government loans,Well lets see eh? but I would feel a little more optimistic if I thought there was a game plan —hey perhaps there is like globalisation? every bit as good? –or is it rivers of blood time as Enoch Powell predicted —-well probably neither —but as the old Jewish curse goes ‘May you live in interesting times’ —-and Moor larkin as you say let history judge the outcome of our children’s lives —but as with some other things I am not sure I would agree love is all one needs —-that was Savile’s message wasn’t it? accompanied by pop music if I recollect correctly

rabbitawayMay 10, 2013 at 10:32

The more this crap goes on – the more evidence we find that Sir Jimmy Savile is innocent of any wrong doing. The fact that West Yorkshire police continued to use Jim for their advertising campaigns after the 2008 ‘investigation’ speaks volumes. That they too have sought to make out a case for the prosecution retrospectively, is nothing more than PEER PRESSURE.

Dai BrainbocsMay 10, 2013 at 09:59

Hewson has done a massive disservice to people warning of witch hunts by conflating it with a call to reduce the age of consent, which IMHO is an unrelated issue. I suspect few people would favour lowering it at all and only a tiny, tiny minority would advocate 13 which would be a charter for older men to prey on teenagers.

And younger. If “I didn’t realise she was under 16″ is now sometimes advanced as a defence, logically “I didn’t think she was under 13″ could be used if the age of consent was ever lowered. (I have a daughter in her early 20s and I’d say that however much she and her mostly very bright friends might have thought in their teens that they looked older than they were, as soon as they spoke you’d know otherwise.)

I’d go so far as to say that if an agent provocateur wanted to damage the “stop these witch hunts” camp they could do no better than Hewson has done.

I think ‘teenagers’ have changed beyond all recognition in the past 15/20 years – infantilised, indulged and brainwashed by education, television and the internet – that, beyond the real oddballs who are genuine Hebeophiles, they do not appeal to ‘older men’ at all.As someone approaching middle-age I find the majority of them vacuous, sexless and immature – whereas before then a “young woman” could be anything and anyone she wanted to be and to be drawn to older men was generally accepted as a natural thing – men attracted to fertility, women to experience and security. I’d say ask the older generation – Bruce Forsyth maybe – but as they’re being burned in a Wicker Man by the nouveau media that ain’t a realistic option. A more honest label for older men still hunting teenage girls in the 21st Century UK would be ‘Idiotophile’I am quite sure Hewson threw in the Age Of Consent quote to get the article into the mainstream news – but in itself it is another issue that should be debated for those genuinely concerned with the welfare of the Sexed-Up Generation Sexless in all its manifestations – most women aged around 25 that I speak to will freely admit they started having sex when they were 12/13. Are we to believe their partners were/all ‘predatory paedophiles’? In my humble opinion, the risk of older men ‘preying’ on teenage girls is, for several reasons, lower than it ever has been and lowering the age of consent will not change that one iota.

Williams-Thomas is at it again this morning – condemning Hewson for daring to have such a cognitive and sensible point of view, demanding “I hope her Chambers & Bar take action against her – in the hope she will learn why she is so wrong” and whipping up all of the Professional Victims and Legal Parasites.Now it’s obvious what has been “hiding in clear view” – every Yewtree-related arrest of ‘others’ who have ‘stepped out of line’ have been for them to “learn why they are so wrong” – Jim Davidson, Max Clifford, Bill Roache: tricky bastards the lot of ‘em. One can imagine him saying “I’m sure they will have a lot of time to reflect on their views from their prison cell”.

An interesting twist on the Max Clifford case – It has transpired MWT is effectively a product of Clifford and an associate of Clifford. It was time to put the old dog down and take over, Clifford realises the weapon he helped create is now being used on him and ‘he knows too much’.

We have a core of people – “MWT and ‘Others’” (to put it in Yewtree language) who are ruthless beyond your worst nightmare. This isn’t going to go away, it’s going to get a hell of a lot worse. Those DJ’s and personalities who have been told – off the record of course – they are not to speak the truth on Jimmy Savile and/or others or they too will be finished. It is now a cloud hanging over any famous or semi-famous figure over about 45. Your U25′s have been conditioned to accept anything and everything they’re told, those older have to dealt with another way if they don’t fall into line – and that includes all of us (and everyone I have spoken to in my everyday life recently) who can all see quite clearly through the fog of lies.It is beyond sinister – but if we don’t do something about it now we might as all give up and get the hell out of this nightmare of a country right now.

Mina fieldMay 10, 2013 at 13:20

@Chris Barratt‘MWT a product of and an associate of Max Clifford’. Where has this come from, please?

Jonathan King – who stated the following yesterday:“The exact relationship between MWT, Craig Denholm and Brian Marjoram (of Surrey Police) and Max Clifford (the famous publicist with a proud letter from the aforementioned on his office wall thanking him for his “assistance” in wrongly convicting JK – unless he’s sensibly removed it to a cupboard by now) is not yet entirely public knowledge. It will all come out in time. Karma”

Mina fieldMay 10, 2013 at 13:39

@Chris Barratt

Cheers, I did wonder if you were referring to this. I think JK has made a mistake there – I don’t think MWT’s name is on that letter. I’ve mentioned previously that even JK himself has been bamboozled lately by MWT’s claim to an involvement in his case.

JoBlowMay 10, 2013 at 17:20

MWT has boasted of leaking info to the media while he was a cop. The same thing for which several have been sent to jail for.

Interesting bit about Jimmy taking girls from his local cafe to london but no sign of any inappropriateness here – just the opposite in fact

367.33 In particular, the officer described how whilst on duty, Savile was seen jogging in Roundhay Park. The officer said “hello” but he did not respond as he seemed to be angry. A short time later the officer spoke to a female who the officer believed worked in the café in Roundhay Park and appeared upset.She stated that Savile was a “horrible man” and she wished he would not come in to the café. At no time did she make an allegation of sexual assault or any other crime to the officer.The review team have conducted extensiveenquiries to obtain further information about thisincident. In doing so, thefamily that owned the café have been interviewed together with the three females that have been identified as having worked or spent time at the café during this period. Both the owners and the females have said that not only did Savile attend the café on a regular basis, but that they became good friends with Savile. All have independently stated that at no time was Savile ever inappropriate towards them, in either words oractions.Savile took the females to London for the filming of Top of the Pops and also Jim’ll Fix It.They describe him being like an uncle and acting like a gentleman. The only instance of police attendance at the café that theowner could recall was one occasion where a female officer attended to speak to them about a customerhaving been short changed.Savile was present in the rear of the shop having a coff

rabbitawayMay 10, 2013 at 09:25

Here’s an interesting bit about one of the ‘rumours’ never substantiated against Jimy – the 1958 story …..

287.5In October 2012, it was reported in the media that Savile had been investigated by the police in relation to offences of indecency involving “young girls” as early as 1958. In a journalist interview with a former employee of Savile’s club, the Mecca Locarno in Leeds, it was reported that Savile had come into the club one day and seemed to be in a low mood. When the employee spoke to other people in the club, not Savile, he was told that Savile was worried because he was up in court for “interfering with young girls”. He notes that a few days later Savile was back to his normal self. The press reports quoted the employee as saying that it was because “he had paid them (the police) off”.7.6Following this WYP received an enquiry from BBC Radio Leeds asking for a response in relation to the media report. Later that same day the Radio Leeds reporter recontacted WYP stating they were no longer seeking aresponse. Radio Leeds had conducted an interview with the former employee and he had stated that the media was incorrect in its reporting and that he had been misquoted regarding paying off the police.7.7Officers from the review team have spoken with the former employee who confirms that he was misquoted by the press. He stated that the incident did happen but the conversation was about Savile paying off the victims’ families and not the police. He stated that he did not suggest that Savile had paid the police off in relation to this matter.7.8As well as checking WYP archives, enquiries have been conducted with Her Majesty’s Court Service (HMCS) and the Crown Prosecution Service to establish if there are any records in existence relating to this matter. Due to the passage of time, any records that may have existed have now been destroyed in line with normal procedure and no further information has been located that relates to Savile being investigated and charged with any criminaloffences in 1958. WYP was unable to identify any victims relating to this incident and none of the victims who have come forward since Operation Yewtree commenced outline any offending matching this allegation.

THEY FOUND NOTHING …….

MarinerFan1970May 10, 2013 at 09:39

The rubbishing of the West Yorkshire Police’s report has already begun from the usual suspects (solicitors for the Savile “victims”, MWT, etc) but surely West Yorkshire Police were always on a loser with this one; if they did find something dodgy had been going on and published as much they would have been pilloried by those same people as being in league with Jimmy Savile et al and part of the Great Conspiracy (TM). Now that they haven’t found anything they’re being accused of a massive cover-up and being part of the Great Conspiracy (TM).

One of the infuriating things about all this is how supine the media is with regard to self-styled experts and how little they challenge the views that they espouse; as long as the view chimes with the current media slant on something neither it nor the expert’s bona fides are ever challenged with any conviction or forensic skill.

Duncan DisorderlyMay 10, 2013 at 10:41

“One of the infuriating things about all this is how supine the media is with regard to self-styled experts and how little they challenge the views that they espouse”

Par for the course throughout history, from the village shaman onwards. We are only barely better at spotting bullshit than people in neolithic times.

Mina FieldMay 10, 2013 at 18:32

What I’m curious about, in view of MWT’s slagging off of this report, is what he tweeted earlier in the morning. He tweeted that he was spending a few days now filming WYP. If that is correct it means he is being offered and is accepting their hospitality at the same time as denigrating them. Bizarre !

rabbitawayMay 10, 2013 at 09:14

Great – the talking lamp posts

4.9Alongside the “Hand in a Handler” campaign, Savile was invited by the LDCSP to be involved in the ‘Talking Signs’ campaign. This involved a recording of Savile’s voice being broadcast through speakers attached to lamp posts giving local students and resident’s crime prevention advice. Savile did not receive payment for any support he provided to this or any other WYP campaigns.4.10On 9th November 2011 Savile’s funeral mass took place at the Leeds Cathedral, (St Anne’s Cath

The inquiry, dubbed Operation Newgreen, found no evidence he was shielded from arrest but admitted an “over-reliance on personal friendships” between Savile and officers and pledged to review how it deals with “high-profile individuals” in light of the investigation.

The report added: “When taken in context, Savile lived for over 80 years as an individual who has duped millions into believing that he was a genuine celebrity, a charity fundraiser and a harmless eccentric who did nothing but good in our communities.

@Chris BarrattRe ‘mentally disturbed housewives’. You are right on the money with this. Its pretty disturbing actually to trawl through the timelines of some of these individuals who are his main followers. In many cases its clear that their twitter account started the day after Exposure, and that ‘they now will deal with their historic abuse’ victimhood for the first time. They then mention reporting stuff to helplines, going to their GPs, and so on. Even worse, with every new bit of salacious nastiness that MWT cheerily broadcasts they wail that ‘they’re having a bad day and no sleep because its brought it all back to them’. If this isn’t sinister enough he intersperses his disgusting tweets with photos of ‘cute kittens’ . Talk about grooming!

Ho HumMay 10, 2013 at 01:25

I’m envious. You can rant better than me

Seriously, this I can subscribe to, as being more by way of a clinical dissection and, while there are a few choice phrases which I might have avoided myself , it’s not merely a dirt dishing splatterfest. Some well crafted points and highly relevant questions therein, and I am sure most of us would very much like to get the real answers

I am sure I read on some mainstream article that MWT is in fact 52 not 42 – which would tally more with his appearance and background. If he’s just 42 than he must have joined Surrey Police at 17/18 – which was, in those days, practically unheard of.But doesn’t the age thing in itself just highlight the major problem with him? Here is a man whom has successfully networked himself as a “child protection expert” on the basis of what? Who is he? We know nothing about him. He has got himself into a position were he can view photographs of child abuse at his leisure, pontificate and stir up trouble to his hears content and not forgetting he can criticise Police Forces, Barristers, Judges, Sociologists, Psychologists, Scholars and anyone else who doesn’t subscribe to his sensationalist agenda. He has contrived his joyless. hang-wriniging, ever-Tweeting persona to give absolutely nothing away about himself, to answer nothing about who he is or his background – basically just to appeal to subservient mainstream journalists and mentally disturbed housewives. A man who communicates his dour messages of fear and hate only by a maximum of 140 character ‘tweets’ and steadfastly avoids any open debate or intellectual discussion.The manner in which he rounded upon Barbara Hewson last night, setting his “dogs” on her by way of retweet, were the actions of a narcissistic psychopath who clearly believes he is some sort of Holy Messiah – and gave the game away totally. Am I to understand that everybody I showed that article to – and who also agreed with every word – are “ignorant and dangerous”? Those were the words of a man who has moved mountains to ensure his “big break” doesn’t fail and that anyone and everyone who gets in his way pays a huge price – and as far as I am concerned he has proved what I feared to be true.He is clearly not acting alone in this, whatever he might say – but the upshot is the same. He is a very dangerous man who cares not a jot for anyone caught up in his web of self-serving propaganda.All of the nasty personality disorders he has posthumously credited to poor Jimmy Savile clearly apply to him – and if you think I am being OTT let’s discuss whether this is wrong in a couple of years time….

Mark personifies the same narrow-minded and judgmental Welsh persona that derided and destroyed Dylan Thomas, one of the greatest poets who ever lived. These types spend inordinate time peeping around the lace curtains, tut-tutting about the neighbors, while keeping dirty magazines in the sock drawer. Some of my father’s family were of that ilk, so I hope I’ll not be accused of bigotry. Otherwise, I am happy to be half-Welsh!

WellwisherMay 10, 2013 at 02:59

@chris barratt I absolutely agree, he personified jimmy savile as an untouchable man with high status, using that status to use and abuse…MWT is using his own status and untouchable persona that he is above the law. Using victims of abuse to gain notoriety and fame, where does that differ from the actions of jimmy savile? Not only were these victims allegedly abused first of all at the hands of jimmy Savile, they are being abused once again at the hands of MWT as a means of building his own career.

Sucessfully networked himself in as a ‘child protection expert’ —–on the button ——and that is his skill—-networking and it appears not much beyond that—-a year as a detective and an Undergraduate Degree in Criminolgy does not an expert make —–and I have to say I suspect many of the ‘good and the great’ have become experts in many fields with their ability to network and then to provide a name and a face that becomes recognisable and short soundbites (the essential qualifications for an expert) that constitute ‘news’ and/or ‘information’. Rent an expert who for a small fee can fill the column inches or the airwaves. Perhaps the ‘Public’ get the Media, the Politicians, and much else they deserve. I have been astounded at the contents of this blog and the comments. I mean seriously —seriously—someone of MWT’s abilities having influence— so much influence—and so little expertise—– on so serious an issue as child protection is as I see it just one aspect of why the whole Savile matter has such relevance to understanding the nature of Society in the UK.—-Media Awards, Olympic Security, Putting forward the ‘value’ of game shows as a method–an important method—- of helping ‘solve’ crime.The shame of the whole scenario? Not difficult to see —the trivialarisation of serious issues —not just Child Abuse—in order to provide what can only be seen as something to keep the public occupied.I take the point on MWT being witchhunted on this blog but that is a side issue —and history indicates that those who climb on the roundabout of public opinion had better have a firm grip and hold on tight —-and it doesn’t look as if MWT grip is that firm to me— but really isn’t one of the important issues here is that whilst most are distracted watching the roundabout and thinking its what life is all about there are loads of scummy people in the crowd picking pockets and much else besides. Savile was a major rider on the roundabout in the 70s/80s — his expertise? –what he supplied to the public? —-how he got the grip on the roundabout? how he held on?—-now that is what is truely fascinating

Savile distracted nobody. Despite the current media hype suggestions to the contrary he was never a “celeb” when he was popular, he just did what he did fro work. I’ve remarked in my blogs that it’s actually very difficult to grasp how on earth he raised the millions he did for Stoke Mandeville.

“I thought I would look to see where such a colossal sum had come from. When the Savile Expose began, one central tenet of the investigative journalists was to warn us that Savile had blackmailed the investigative journalists of the past by warning them that if they did for him, then they’d do for the money as well. We were also cautioned by the police that all Savile’s “money-raising” was just a method he implemented to allow him to get close to his victims. It even seemed implied that he effectively bribed people in positions of authority with his fund-raising so that they would turn a blind-eye to his sexual predation. Taking all this into account, I anticipated I would find Savile constantly all over the media. It wasn’t that easy. I’m not hugely the wiser after looking, than I was beforehand, exactly where all this money came from. The biggest single “cheque presentation” I have found was when the UK government appeared to donate £500,000.”http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/following-money.html

Distracted No One? Never a Celeb?Well I might disagree with you a little on that Moor Larkin and Mrs Thatcher and the Pope who each gave him knighthoods might tend to my viewpoint I might like to think —-and even a few of the many millions who watched Jim’ll Fix it might think so also —oh and perhaps the crowds who lined his funeral route —though come to think of it you might be right Lady Di was only doing a job

I had no memory of Savile ever being knighted by the Pope. The only time I can see that Savile had anything to do with Di was when she attended an opening of Stoke Mandeville, a bit like Princess marina turning up at Duncroft. Savile simply was not a celebrity in the way you are suggesting. He was rarely if ever in any gossip pages, and if you are suggesting his being in a popular BBC show is sinister somehow, then roll on the outing of Terry Wogan.

@Moor Larkin belowCut and paste from WikipediaSavile was honoured with a Papal knighthood by being made a Knight Commander of the Pontifical Equestrian Order of Saint Gregory the Great (KCSG) by Pope John Paul II in 1990.[Tell me Moor Larkin aren’t you an expert on Savile ? Run a blog or something?Naaahhh no suggestion by me of anything sinister about the BBC or any links to Lady Di —-although I rather like the info on conspiracy theory sites I am seldom drawn to their conclusions. Some miss a few dots, others see dots when there are none —when they try to connect them to find the picture .

I had no interest in Savile until all this blew up in our faces. I knew who he was of course, but what I mean is that I had no idea he had a papal knighthood until recently. In Britain Catholic honours are hardly news-worthy. I watched telly and read the papers in the last forty years and Savile made very little impression on my life other than being that berk who talked like an idiot on TotPops and had ridiculous hair and used to do that show where kids had their dreams come true – but that was donkeys years ago. I was aware he was a great do-gooder and worked for nowt in hospitals but he was never all over the meeja for any of this.

Up until last year I knew far more about Jordan/Katy Price than I ever knew about Savile. He simply was NOT a self-aggrandizing celebrity. This whole business about him is just the bollocks that the likes of Williams-Thomas have contrived to tell us was true, to somehow justify that THEY are so clever that THEY have uncovered something that I was blinded to by Savile’s “celebrity”. That is horse-shit and his Exposure show is riddled with lies it seems – especially Val & Angie.

Put your fingers in the right holes rather than tracing the bloody dots.

@ Moor LarkinHe simply was NOT a self-aggrandizing celebrity.Have a look at the Theroux documentary and the ‘sprained ankle’ jobby at the end and you might change your point of view.Like you I took little note of Savile and his impact on Society —in retrospect rather dumb of me —occassioned I suspect by a certain intellectual snobbery —still I am trying to make up for lost time courtesy of this blog

And what exactly did Savile do after his big celebrity opportunity with Theroux? So far as I can make out he tried to make a Fixit comeback in about 2006, which went nowhere and that was about it. Where was his exploitation of the Noughties reality TV boom?

Jimmy at St. JimmysJimmy fixes the NHSJimmy fixes it for Charles & CamillaJimmy swims with DolphinsJimmy and the paraplegicsJimmy travels Virgin style and lets the train take the strainSavile’s CountryFile Travels

About his only celeb moment afterwards was hugging George Galloway in the Big Brother house………

@Moor LarkinBy the 90s Savile’s sell by date had passed —my interest is his influence on the 70s and 80s—-much as I have an interest now in MTW and his 15 minutes of fame now (well I hope its no longer than that but lets see eh?) —in Saviles case it was rather more than just 15 minutes and I think you rather underestimate his influence and his importance —and its potential relevance to what may be transpiring now. You are right about fingers though ——whilst pondering the meaning of the universe I tend to pick my nose rather too often—-but fat old men are allowed such foibles —-educate me though where should I be putting my finger?.

I’ll leave you to your picking over the entrails of the past. Tell us what you find that seems interesting. Then maybe there’s be some unpicking to do. I have no idea what you’re on about.

Jonathan MasonMay 11, 2013 at 01:46

[Savile] … that berk who talked like an idiot on TotPops…

I think he just had a strong Leeds accent, plus he spoke in that rather deliberate, mannered mode for the cameras, punctuated with lots of “as it ‘appens,” “guys and gals”, etc. as a kind of verbal filler to replace “er” and “um” and give him time to think. He was no Stuart Hall, who certainly had an amazing way with words and an ability to speak fluently off the cuff that Savile never had. Forget It’s A Knockout, he was very good as an anchor on Look North.

I was probably bending over backwards to be cruel in order show I was not being kind…… Suffice to say I have only burned a candle for Jim since his life was thrown on the bonfire of the vanities of others……..

@Moor LarkinThink about why people study history —proper History not text books.I wasn’t around in Tudor times but I do have personal knowledge of the 70s and 80s —what I was told was happening and what was really happeningRead Orwell (or Huxley or many other erudite authors of the 20th century) intelligently and you might understand my interest —actually less for myself than my children to whom I believe I owe something of a duty to advise them of the way the world might be moving by reference to how things have happened in the past which I have some personal knowledge of. If it was just my interests I had at heart I would spend my time quite contentedly with my finger up my nose contemplating the universe rather than anything more demanding

No Moor Larkin I am giving them an education in the humanities so they might discern. Learning a trade (call it a profession if you want though I am not sure such a distinction has much value) —-recieving a training—– comes after they have been educated

Thanks Chris Barrett —I am as intrigued by your post as I was when I came across Anna’s articles about Duncroft. give me a while to read it before i comment

charlotteMay 10, 2013 at 00:15

Most young people under the age of 16 engage in consensual sex, mainly though with partners nearer their own age. It’s been going on for century’s and laws preventing under age sex as the law stands now won’t stop it. The law can only protect children to a certain degree any moral or health compass must be set by a parent. I do agree though that Barbra Hewson could have worded her essay better. I agree with ‘I Love the BBC’ in context with that remark. However for Hewson to put her head above the parapet on the Savile/yewtree investigation was as brave as Anna has been. None of the daily’s will print any criticism of yew tree or MWT (who seems to be back footing on his twitter page this evening). For me it’s the balance of probabilities that’s strange; Savile it is said was reported before his death by a couple of women. No action taken. MWT does an exposure after Savile’s death and one woman and a few of her mates from Duncroft accuses him and 2 others of sexual abuse. Everyone believes them even though one of the women is a convicted fraudster. Suddenly there is pandemonium country wide and the witch hunt begins. Soon nearly 500 people come forward to report sexual abuse by Savile, they are believed. Commander Spindler says, after suddenly leaving the yewtree investigation that the figure of abuse by Savile is more like 15 or 16 hundred – What? When did Savile have time to work or the energy to flipping run? The police and MWT begin to advertise for ‘victims’ to come forward if they believe they were abused. I have to agree with an earlier post that basically says that the police are making every effort to gain popularity points with the investigation.The USA were whipped into a frenzy over the McCartha witch trials in the 50′s that remains a shameful episode in the American film industry. The only one who came out of that smelling sweet was the actor Ronald Reagan aka President Reagan. Who will have the sweet smell of success at the end of this?

Reagan didn’t come out smelling like anything other than the pile of dog-doo that he was. The man was a national disgrace. But I digress. Back to charlotte’s thoughtful post. “Nearly 500 people come forward,” and who has the proof of that? The papers have been extremely wrong in a lot of this. Surely if there were that many, all these field hacks would be doorstepping all over the country, but the best they can do is a few women from Duncroft. Ultimately, I believe the fate of the ex-copper will be at the hands of his own. He’s taking a dodgy stand, criticizing his peer group for not doing their job back when and, in his estimation, not now. I’d have a lot more respect for MWT if he’d keep a lower profile and stop chasing elderly celebrities.

As to the age of consent. Juliet was 13, and Romeo’s age is not specified. I can only suppose that Juliet would have been married off to a wealthy man twice her age at around 14 or 15, and obviously adolescent liasions were acceptable in Renaissance Europe among the nobility – at the very least. People didn’t live all that long in those days, so to marry young would have been understandable.

Parenthetically, I’m starting to see references to girls of 13 at Duncroft again. Nobody was 13. The youngest of us was 14. Margaret Jones did not accept girls who were that young.

I love the BBCMay 9, 2013 at 22:10

Hewson’s remarks about the age of consent were particularly unfortunate because of the context in which she made them. By appearing to link criticism of the shaming and prosecution of aged celebrities with the age of consent, she managed to give the impression that if only the legal age had been lowered then a bunch of dirty old men could have had their jollies with impunity.While there is much in what she said that is worthy of discussion, she has made a huge mistake (in my opinion) in the way she said it and the different threads she linked together. I don’t want to see the age of consent lowered and I don’t really know any parents of youngsters who do. I felt no different when I myself was a teenager – it seems more or less right to me as it is. I’m much more concerned about the retrospective application of current attitudes towards sexual behaviour to events that are in some cases 4 decades old.Hall seems to my untutored eye like a rather different kettle of fish – a serial predator who did not just take advantage of star-struck wannabe groupies but a man who actively sought out and entrapped girls who were going about perfectly ordinary and legitimate activities – like attending a school prize giving. And stooping to a nine year old suggests a real sickness.

Mina FieldMay 9, 2013 at 22:24

@I love the BBCI agree with you on the age of consent issue, and I too wish she hadn’t dropped that bit in right at the end. I don’t agree about SH though. There doesn’t appear to me to be anything persuasive of more than fleeting accidental contact with the youngest accusers. I also saw the interview yesterday on This Morning with the ex BBC woman who’d made the ‘he had women visiting the studio’ claims – can’t remember her name right now but she’s married to Austin Mitchell. She was describing what a tactile – seriously tactile – sort of person he was. Said he touched everyone all the time. Whilst she was talking about how irritating it was to her it does also rather tend to explain the sort of contact which these people are now alleging (now as in, when there is a compensation claim offered to them) to have been sinister.

I love the BBCMay 14, 2013 at 00:34

@ MinaRes SH – yes he was tactile. I know people who knew him quite well, have had some minor dealings with him myself. He was tactile in the way that many men of his generation were – exactly the sort of men who are now in big trouble for it several decades on. It’s genuinely hard, I think, for younger people to grasp how things used to be and they tend to think you must have been thick or weak to ‘put up with it’. For myself, I never did put up with it, I learned to deal with it and was glad when it was no longer the norm. But I wouldn’t ever make a complaint now against the men who did it. For one thing, I could spend the last decades of my life in a solicitor’s office or a court room before I got through them all, and frankly I have better things to do with my time.However, Halls’ behaviour seems to me to be worse IF the women involved are telling the truth. I certainly found their testimony a good deal more compelling than some of the rubbish we have heard from Savile’s ‘victims’. He used his position as a local celebrity to snare them, set them up in mock studio situations, grope them and initiate contact they did not want. He may not have done very much to that 9 year old, but that he did anything at all is awful.As for the age of consent – I am against lowering it not because I think that elite paedophiles, celebrities and old men will make a beeline for young nubiles but because girls will be under even more pressure than they already are to give their spotty classmates a blowjob for a bottle of vodka. There is a culture of casual, quite often cajoled sexual contact, much of it inspired by viewing porn, which is very damaging for both sexes and should be resisted. I say this as the mother of a girl just past 17 who, while she had the sense to realise that giving it up early earns you nothing but a reputation as a girl who gives it up easily, is undoubtedly far LESS mature than I was at 17. This quite simply is because when I was 17 I was working, I was out every night of the week, I walked everywhere, drank in pubs, attended gigs on my own, did all manner of things which my girl would scare herself witless over if she tried it now. Our children are actually children for longer these days, even if their ipads are full of images of anal sex and their phones full of sexts. It’s a strange paradox.

Mina FieldMay 14, 2013 at 02:24

@I Love the BBC.Yes its true that many men in ‘the old days’ were very touchy feely, and I too rebuffed them strongly – the first time being at age four. So I have no difficulty in imagining the exuberant SH to have been just like that.You’ve lost me with the ‘compelling testimony’ though, because the very allegations of mock recordings and studios you allude to appear to be a ludicrous tabloid fiction. Nor was he charged with or convicted of any such things.

It’s all academic anyhow. Hall is guilty. He has admitted his offences.

Ho HumMay 9, 2013 at 23:34

I would lower it. More in line with French/Spanish/German levels which seem to work just fine. Maybe not as low as the Japanese one, though. I’d also couple it to sensible differentials, dependent on the age of the participants, as is common in the US, to keep the older manipulative perv very much in the ‘baddy’ frame.

I think it is fundamentally wrong to make ‘criminals’ of young people, for falling foul of their hormones. I put up two posts earlier today on the previous ‘Nigel Evans is Dead..’ post, before Anna put this one up, that explain more fully why, giving examples of the sort of problems that can arise, and which we are fast heading to if this continues.

If this nonsense ended up with any of my grandchildren being made sex offenders because some prurient bunch of do-gooders introduced some legalistic regime that made them criminals for succumbing to, let’s face it, something that at that age can be a hard to resist temptation, I’d be seriously pissed off. And, as half the population would probably end up being criminals, any such law could only but be stupid in the extreme. And in this instance, the Pharisees and Sadducees are far from confined to being the religious folk. This is an entirely different bunch of zealots, each set of which has their own secular agendas.

carol42May 9, 2013 at 21:55

Whatever else happens Barbara Hewson at least got it into the public domain that this witch hunt is seriously damaging to the legal systen if people are now treated as guilty if some ‘victim’ says something happened 40 years ago, this cannot be right. Of course the age of consent was pounced upon while the body of a very good article was ignored. Spike has done some good work on the subject but doesn’t spread beyond it’d readers. That said many of today’s 13 year olds are roughly what we were at about 16 but not all of course so maybe a change would not be advisable. I suspect the compensation culture has a lot to answer for.

charlotteMay 9, 2013 at 21:21

Well, I’m totally cut that MWT blocked me from his twitter site. He apologised that he had not tweeted for something like 17 days for his own safety as he had been working under cover. I only replied if he was concerned with death by tweet!MWT would have us believe that the streets of the UK are swarming with paedophiles. It’s in his own interests to cause as much panic in this area as he can to keep the money rolling in. It’s also in his interests to diss the police and let everyone know that he is the only bona fide bogey man catcher this side of the moon. I tell you if MWT was a bar of chocolate he’d eat himself, however, as me old mum used to say pride goes before a fall and I believe the fall will come fairly soon.Barbara Hewson is an intelligent woman who, I feel deals well with points of law and legal argument. I suppose the argument against the legal age of consent being dropped to 13 would be: that a person of 13 would not have the maturity of emotion or reason to make a decision to engage in consensual sex. I would agree though that women do reach puberty much earlier now than in the Victorian age. Not only would any new act of law cover all gender but I assume, it would affect people who fall within the mental health act. I would certainly want to hear further argument and reason before I rubbished Hewson’s proposal. MWT only deals with hysterical conversation, he reply’s before he has thought through what has been said and this from a so called ex copper turned academic. There are people who tweet MWT after yet another celebrity arrest calling for the person to be jailed believing that an arrest is the end to it. One would expect that an ex copper turned academic would enlighten his followers that a charge has to follow, then a court case and only in the event of a guilty verdict or plea might this lead to a jail sentence. This is usually when MWT go’s silent and allows the ranting to continue without checking. Anyone who disagree with MWT’s point of view is blocked, he has said that he will not give oxygen to those who don’t agree with him. It is sually from argument and an opposite view that the academic will broaden their mind and view. This is termed thought provoking, I think but I am not an academic so could be wrong.MWT, in my opinion and from what I have witnessed acts as lose cannon. I would’ve have thought that trampling all over the evidence gung-ho style is contrary to how the police work. I don’t imagine that those at the biting edge of policing would welcome a snotty nosed junior DC telling them how best to proceed.There seems to be a lot of evidence on this blog today that MWT is not all that popular with his colleagues, and gives inaccurate facts in relation to his career in the police. Wonder how they and previous boss’s will react when the poo hits the fan? But I would really like to know where he is getting all the inside info from.

Mina FieldMay 9, 2013 at 22:35

@Charlotte

Your mention of the great man’s twitter feed just prompted me to take a quick look. As he is now saying that the ‘wrong’ people are carrying out these Savile reviews and that they are too interested in covering their own arses it is looking as though the West Yorkshire Police one is going to be fairly low on scandal.

The RTS judges described his ITV Exposure documentary as being “a sensation without ever being sensationalist” – a subtle accolade for an hour-long film that sparked a national outcry about decades of hidden abuse and sent shockwaves through the BBC.

Please please please Mewsical tell me the Guardian article which you link and from which the above quote is an extract is no more than a spoof concoted by you as satire —too much nonesense in one day is too much for a fat old man like me.

Look folk, you’re in danger of sounding like a load of old farts dissing someone that you don’t like, just because you don’t like him, and in doing so damaging your own credibility in the mind of the non-regular reader and other passer by, because you seem to be taking your eye so far off the real ball that you sound as if you don’t care a toss for the kids involved

As a regular, I know that’s not true, and that you are really really concerned about the damage the approach that he and others will probably do to the proper dispensation of justice by subverting the proper application of law and due process, as well as the long term problems it will create in society as a whole, but there is a dirty seam here, and merely taking pot shots at someone who most people see as doing something tangible about it, just doesn’t cut it.

By all means highlight the necessary issues, but for goodness sake you need to be clearly seen to be playing the ball, not just the man.

Thus endeth the rant for today

rabbitawayMay 9, 2013 at 18:26

Ho Hum – strangely enough that’s what I was just thinking ……correct, we are giving this guy far too much attention …..BUT ….”It was good while it lasted”

I have generally steered clearly of this pompous ass on my own blog for precisely the sort of reasons you suggest. However, I think Anna Raccoon has flagged him up quite reasonably, and any venting is perfectly justified. He is also the man who protested the Met was not doing it’s job properly because some bloke got naked in the name of Art, on the 4th Plinth in Trafalgar Square a year or two back, and purely because he was an “ex-copper” got himself featured on the BBC news website. I imagine if it had been me, I’d have been busted and spent the night in a cooling tank.

More pertinently, he is the man who has turned a perfectly innocent old, dead man, who was anything but ordinary into a pariah, based on nothing but fantasy and outright lies – as pretty much all of his “Exposure” evidence is now demonstrably false, and the programme itself also appears to be downright duplicitous too, since Angie and Val appear to also be “Old Duncroftians” and this was explictly hidden from the viewer.. I can only hope the remaining “Inquiries” are being run by people with some cojones, unlike Walter Softy at the BBC, and the self-serving wives of Winsor – as Anna Raccoon rightly dubbed them.

Ho HumMay 9, 2013 at 23:47

@ Moor Larkin

I’m perfectly happy with what Anna wrote. It was the subsequent, overly enthusiastic BTL kicking being administered, how others then might perceive those who participate here and their consequent view of Ms R’s content as a whole, that I was concerned about.

The points need made, but the crowd needs to have less of a feel of what might be expected at Tyburn, or rabid participation in the DMs comments, or maybe even Witchfinder General Witchfinding, to it, if you see what I mean

Otherwise, it just takes on the same character, and we sink to the level of the rest of them

If you basically disbelieve the Gospel of Savile then it’s very difficult to see how else this spell will be broken without tearing down the pillars of wisdom that created it. “Savile” is no longer disputed across the “medium”; his abuse is an accepted “fact” even though the press still uses terms like “alleged” for some reason. The media and law enforcement of this country is now so deeply embedded in this farce that the only possible way out for THEM is for someone to demonstrate that THEY have all been misled by lies themselves, and that, I am afraid, will require someone to be shown to be a liar. There is a time for sitting on fences but at some point you have to climb off and smell the flowers.

Ho HumMay 10, 2013 at 12:29

I’m not bothered about that being done. I’d support it wholeheartedly. It’s how it’s done, and how it can be progressed properly, that are the issues

I’ve looked at your website and it’s meticulous in its examination of the detail. But what are you going to be doing that makes the average punter believe that you are not just another nutjob like those found on any other conspiracy loon site, some of which are contributed to by people who, on the face of it, may seem to have significantly better technical knowledge and professional and personal experience than many of those there, or here, and who can sound, prima facie, equally as plausible with their examination of the detail of their particular hobby horses

I’m not trying to be insulting, I’m just asking. Do you really believe that you can win this sort of ‘war’ from just that basis? If you do, I do hope you have a very cunning plan… Really!

@ what are you going to be doing that makes the average punter believe @

That is my point. The first step is to make them have reason to disbelieve. Why should they disbelieve MWT. Every Authority is agreeing with him. Unless the falsehoods can be corrected how can any of this be undone? I cannot know a girl at Duncroft was NOT kissed with tongues without Miss Jones noticing.

I can know that there were:no 13 year-olds at DuncroftKeri was born in 1958 so could not have been 14 in 1974Savile’s shows were not at BBC TV CentreAngie & Val were also at Duncroft and Williams-Thomas deliberately hid the fact.

There is nothing I can do to make people know those facts other than write them down. What are you doing? Humming and Hoeing?

LucozadeMay 10, 2013 at 14:19

Ho Hum,

Re: “But what are you going to be doing that makes the average punter believe that you are not just another nutjob like those found on any other conspiracy loon site, some of which are contributed to by people who, on the face of it, may seem to have significantly better technical knowledge and professional and personal experience than many of those there, or here, and who can sound, prima facie, equally as plausible with their examination of the detail of”

I suppose it’s up to the average punter to decide for themselves. All Moor can do is write down what he thinks or finds and provide references or links for his findings where possible (which he does) and let people either check or decide for themselves I guess….

LucozadeMay 10, 2013 at 12:18

Moor Larkin,

Re: “More pertinently, he is the man who has turned a perfectly innocent old, dead man, who was anything but ordinary into a pariah, based on nothing but fantasy and outright lies – as pretty much all of his “Exposure” evidence is now demonstrably false, and the programme itself also appears to be downright duplicitous too, since Angie and Val appear to also be “Old Duncroftians” and this was explictly hidden from the viewer.. I can only hope the remaining “Inquiries” are being run by people with some cojones, unlike Walter Softy at the BBC, and the self-serving wives of Winsor – as Anna Raccoon rightly dubbed them”

If ‘most people’ means the tabloid readers who are sharpening pitchforks and lighting flaming torches and demanding ‘action’ over mere allegatioons without benefit of trial, then I’m happy to disregard their opinions entirely, as not worth a candle.

Surely we do not have enough police officers and social worker’s etc to deal with the sheer scale of child abuse in this country. We must now look to private sources of education, investigation, prevention and so on and so forth. I doubt that Mr T will require the help of the dragons when he expands his little empire to create franchises of child protection ‘experts’ !!!!!

rabbitawayMay 9, 2013 at 16:59

I see West Yorkshire Police are to publish a report tomorrow detailing what ‘suspicions’ the force may have had about JS over the years. It will also cover visits to his Leeds flat by ‘on duty’ officers, the notorious ‘Friday morning breakfast club’. Can’t wait – but hold on ‘suspicions’, surely they will be dealing in facts not story’s and gossip ?

I wonder if Howard was interviewed as part of their forensic reportage……….

“Talking to BBC Radio Leeds, Mr Silverman said that every Friday morning Sir Jimmy held what was known as the FMC, or Friday Morning Club, at his flat. Friends of Sir Jimmy would be invited to sit around a big table laden with tea, cakes and whisky. Enveloped in the host’s cigar smoke, the old friends would reminisce and chat the morning away. Mr Silverman said: “If you saw that, no-one would say he didn’t have pals.”http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-15511375

rabbitawayMay 9, 2013 at 17:19

@Moor – maybe he was cutting their hair

EllenMay 9, 2013 at 21:43

Bloody waste of time and money – half a dozen old men sat round drinking tea on a Friday morning!!????!!!Keeping my head down tomorrow……………….. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

ps confronted you know who at SY a week last Friday, felt real good!!!!!!!!

Keep the faith everyone!!

E xxx

Mina FieldMay 9, 2013 at 22:27

@EllenI know what you mean about tomorrow, another onslaught to face. Glad to hear you’re ok. Good luck.

RobertMay 9, 2013 at 16:37

Kingbingo @ 14.39:Hey, a new Jonah Goldberg book!Copy ordered.Thanks.

Rocky Raccoon (no relation)May 9, 2013 at 16:26

How old is MWT ?In one of the articles he was said to have ‘retired’ from the police around November 2000. I read he served with Surrey police for 15 years, which takes us back to 1985. His LinkedIn entry states he was educated at Pierrepoint 1980 – 1989.

He has said he was at the centre of a number of investigations such as Jonathan King yet left the police before King was arrested in November 2000.

MarinerFan1970May 9, 2013 at 16:49

I think he has a very “flexible” approach to his crime-fighting experience; I’ve just found an article he did for the Mirror dated 30.12.12 regarding Jimmy Savile, Tia Sharp, Twitter pervs and other stuff to puff his own self-image where he states “As a police officer I worked in the area of child protection for 20 years”.

Has this man regenerated himself in a Doctor Who style or is he ageless like Dorian Gray? Surely one person can’t have completed as many feats in a lifetime as Williams-Thomas has since the days of Hercules?

Then again – maybe it’s just a load of cobblers…..

Mina FieldMay 9, 2013 at 18:29

@ MarinerFanYes, its a scandal really, when you do start to see the anomalies.As far as I can make out, he was in the police from approx 1989 to 2000. Always just a mere constable, his lot would have been mundane to say the least. His one solitary year as a detective constable would have been not much more interesting. Even if he was ever part of a team working on anything juicy he wouldn’t have had access to all the information or the contents of the file, or interviewed any major suspects.I once found an old newspaper report which indicated that a PC Mark Williams-Thomas had been sent to the home of a man previously arrested for possession of indecent images (I think the man had failed to answer his bail or some such), and found him hanged. I also seem to recall that he once spoke publicly about this nasty incident and said he felt no pity for the man. I’ve always thought that this could have been the start of his apparent lust for more of the same.I think its much more likely that he was forced to resign than that he chose to do so. We know that by 2001 or 2002 he was desperately trying to be a reporter – or something – when he went about it all wrong and got himself charged with blackmail. This doesn’t sound like a predicament flowing from a secure, planned, career move.

As a former police detective who specialised in major crime, Mark worked on or was in charge of some of the largest paedophile and murder investigations in the country. He was also one of only 10 specialist Family Liaison officers during his time with Surrey Police Force. He now runs a child protection and risk management consultancy – WT Associates which looks after the British Olympic Association amongst others.

As well as appearing in the media Mark presented the two part ITV special ‘To Catch A Paedophile’, and ITV Tonight specials on ‘the Case of Jeremy Bamber’ and ‘On the Run’, which looked at and tracked down some of the criminals who have absconded from prison and continue to be on our streets. Alongside Surrey Police Mark and the team found and rearrested several of Surrey’s most wanted. A new series of which will be on our screens shortly.

Regularly called upon to speak at and chair conferences and academic debates on major high profile criminal investigations, and the release of sex offenders into the community, Mark gives talks around the world including the Crimes against Children Conference in the US where over 3000 law enforcement officers from around the world gather each year.

MARk WILLIAMS-THOMASMA CRIMINOLOGyBefore studying at Birmingham City University, Mark spent 13 years in the police force, starting as an area policeofficer and going on to work on a number of high profile cases. He came to study with us as a result of his connectionwith David Wilson (Professor of Criminology at Birmingham City University’s Centre for Applied Criminology), whomhe met on the TV Channel Five series ‘Murder Prevention’. Mark says of Professor Wilson: “He gave me an academicoutlook…I talk criminology from a police point of view, while he talks from an academic and prisons’ point of view.”Mark now runs a child-protection firm and was involved in looking after the British Olympic team in Beijing, servingtheir child protection needs.http://www.bcu.ac.uk/_media/docs/Humanities_Social_Sciences_Prospectus_2010.pdf

rabbitawayMay 9, 2013 at 17:28

I wonder how many ‘doctors’ would get away with treating patients whilst they were still doing their ‘o’ levels …..!!

“Mark now runs a child-protection firm and was involved in looking after the British Olympic team in Beijing, servingtheir child protection needs.” Means someone asked some advice on the phone one day. Maybe.

I have a friend, former Brit cop who has been in charge of IOC security since ’98 and he has no recollection of MWT ever being involved.

“If you will recall, that organ of repute The Sun was negotiating to buy the hapless Alfie’s life story and the tale of his fatherhood until, a solicitor pointed out that The Sun would be committing a criminal act if it did- paying for tales of underaged sex etc.”

Well, well, well, and I’ve got posts from a recent Duncroft blog wherein admission is made that the papers were doling out money in the general direction of the Duncroft ‘victims.’ If you go over to my blog (click on my name here) you will see the story.

““Mark now runs a child-protection firm and was involved in looking after the British Olympic team in Beijing, servingtheir child protection needs.”Means someone asked some advice on the phone one day. Maybe.I have a friend, former Brit cop who has been in charge of IOC security since ’98 and he has no recollection of MWT ever being involved.”

This is the sort of gem we love to find out. I have a feeling the MWT is about to run into trouble with his peers on the police force. Nobody seems to know much if anything about this bloke, and now we have FOI requests for his CV from the Surrey Police being refused. Wtf is going on?

Some of what he has to say does not always make for comfortable listening as he draws from areas of crime which most people prefer to ignore or pretend do not exist (such as child abuse), but what he manages to do is communicate the importance of the work which some people are doing to catch criminals of a certain nature, and in a sense his lecture is reassuring and one leaves with a sense of gratitude that people like Mark put themselves on the line, to protect society’http://www.menspeakers.co.uk/speakerdetail.asp?speakerid=212

Mina FieldMay 9, 2013 at 17:56

@Moor Larkin

You nearly gave me a heart attack then, until I realised you were quoting. Thought you’d come under his spell.

I believe the Jonathan King claim to fame is totally spurious. He had left the force already. He did later claim that a journalist whispered to him about JK rumours round about 1995, but then I guess lots of people did a lot of whispering – and still do -about a lot of things.

‘Became’. All is now clarity personified. Apart from the motives of those you investigate, as always.

Duncan DisorderlyMay 9, 2013 at 14:41

Hmm. This forum post from the 25th of July, 2011 is interesting:

“I just wonder when it was that Mr Williams-Thomas declared himself a child abuse expert and why. There was a tweet last week where he seemed to be bragging about all the child-porn he had had to view.

Ah well, the ‘it was the parents wot dunnit’ brigade of McCann fanatics don’t like him because he – ‘as child protection expert’- wrote a synopsis of the McCann case apparently ‘proving’ that the child was kidnapped.That doesn’t fit in with their world view, and they’ve been on his tail ever since.He made his sin even worse by making it appear as though he had done this on behalf of the parents, but it later turned out to be a gross exaggeration (surprise!)His only contact was one phone call to their press agent, and from that he had solved the case…needless to say the Police were roundly criticised as incompetent, which seems to be an essential element every time he opens his mouth…

KingbingoMay 9, 2013 at 14:39

“It is heretical to call into question the methods by which the modern moral crusaders attempt to define abuse.”

“She is an expert in the field. Yesterday she penned a cogent and well argued article pointing out that this therapeutic jurisprudence was being applied to the field of historic sex abuse. She criticised the methods that those involved with the current Yewtree investigation – which of course includes Mark Williams-Thomas, are using. She pointed out the inherent dangers to our legal system.”

And if she’d only managed not to do something stupid like call for the age of consent to be lowered to 13, that might be all we’d know about her.

I agree with you in the sense that by so calling she gave the tabloid writers a strap line to hang her with.

However, the ‘age of consent’ is an artificial one, agreed by the warring parties of the House of Commons. It is not rooted in any physical change. It was established in Victorian times when the onset of puberty was considerably later than it is now.

If we, as a society, are capable of having a debate and changing the age of consent for homosexual activity, as we did, then I don’t see it as socially deviant to call for such a debate on changing the age of consent for girls. The age of consent in France is 15, in Spain it is 13 – there is no evidence that I am aware of that Spanish or French girls are traumatised for life by having sex at such an age – are we saying that nationality can change your reaction to the sexual act? What happens if you are born a British citizen but then change your nationality to Spanish?

I am not saying that I advocate 13 as the age of consent, but neither do I condemn those who want to see whether 16 is still the right age. The reaction has been one of sheer hysteria at the thought that we might even debate the matter!

Bear in mind that any change in the Age of Consent downwards will also require gay sex to be included.You cannot have your PIE and eat it………………

MudpluggerMay 9, 2013 at 16:56

An alternative to an arbitrary standard Age of Consent would be to fix it at ‘Puberty + 3 Years’. That would at least recognise the natural range of maturity between different young people.How you officially register the start date is another matter, but surely not beyond the wit of man, or even woman.

We’ve seen where relaxing moral standards and allowing a lassaiz faire approach to everything else has got us…why accelerate that decline?

WendiMay 10, 2013 at 12:26

Sorry guys but I don’t see the problem with the age of consent being set at 13 these days. Girls reach puberty much earlier today and if they’re given sensible sex education at school but primarily in their home environment and told how to deal with unwanted attention sensibly, it should be their choice how they handle their hormones. It hardly follows that a stream of older, predatory men would rub their hands with glee for goodness sake – unless the country’s gone completely mad!

I would have an issue with my 13 year-old son being penetrated. Sorry.Sauce for the gander.

WendiMay 10, 2013 at 13:11

Quite understandable Moor!

However, age of consent being 13 has never been a problem here in Spain and I don’t think it has had more adolescent pregnancies than any other European countries as a result nor, for sure, abuse by ‘older’ men. This is due in part to an open and practical attitude towards nudity and sex (since Franco kicked the bucket) and mainly because the family unit is tighter in Spanish society. Kids grow up surrounded by grandparents, uncles and aunts and cousins, giving them plenty of family support and experience to draw on and grow from. Something that appears to be lacking in British society.

Inherent homosexuality is generally fairly clear by the time both boys and girls reach adolescence, so naturally the same rules should apply as to heterosexual adolescents. Age of consent set at 13 hardly means that all 13 yr olds are going to immediately have sex, just that they should certainly not be penalized should they decide to do so out of choice or even, curiosity.

@ Age of consent set at 13 hardly means that all 13 yr olds are going to immediately have sex, just that they should certainly not be penalized should they decide to do so out of choice or even, curiosity @

Re: “the story of a young mum who had her second child at 15, having had her first at 13″

There were a couple of things I found rather bizarre about that article, I don’t know if anyone else thought so too:

“Alleshia Gregson was 12 when she became pregnant with her son Lewis. *She told herself that no one would ever know of the baby’s existence. She would keep it hidden in her wardrobe and feed it bread and milk*. What a pitifully naive vision of motheood, drawn from her experience of looking after her dolls”

Naive? Are they sure that’s the right word? Way before the age of 12 it was well known when I was growing up that babies didn’t go onto solids straight away, but either drank breast milk or were bottle fed and the bottles HAD to be sterilised, and nappies would have to be purchased and changed for various reasons and that babies CRY, not to mention grow up so how could you keep one hidden in your wardrobe?

This is common stuff. Just how was this girl raised?

“Five days after the birth, Alleshia’s breast milk came through — another bewildering moment for the 13-year-old. ‘I ran to my mum and said I need to go to hospital, I’ve got white stuff coming out of me. My mum explained it was just my breast milk”

Perhaps this is down to the fact that most women do not breast feed these days, but my mum breast fed and so did some of her friends/family so I knew full well from early on that if you were to have a baby you should expect breast milk. There is a picture of me at the age of 2 pretending to ‘breast feed’ a doll.

This is obviously being used by the Daily Mail to suggest how ‘naive’ and childish this girl was, as if our heads all zip up the back. All it suggests to me is ignorance, if i’d found out I was pregnant at any age after learning how to read and knew nothing about it I would have picked up a book on the subject, but then my parents had books in the house and there was perfectly good library at our school.

Either this is not typical 12/13 year old behavior or it’s me that was/is unusual (though not in the context of the environment I was in at the time)….

@ This is obviously being used by the Daily Mail to suggest how ‘naive’ and childish this girl was, as if our heads all zip up the back. @It is a bizarre story all round, but largely ignored it seems, except in the reliable mail and mirror, perhaps rightly so – it’s hardly news really.13 year old dad was front page in 2009 however !! (Turned out not to be true)http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/broken-britain.html“Children’s Secretary Ed Balls said his reaction on seeing snaps of Alfie cradling Maisie as his daughter was: “It’s not right, this looks so terrible.”“PM Gordon Brown said he too was worried by the story and that “the Government did all it could to prevent teenage pregnancies.”

LucozadeMay 10, 2013 at 17:40

Moor Larkin,

Re: 13 year old Alfie

I could sense when that story came out he wouldn’t have been the dad. That girl lead him up the garden path….

JoBlowMay 10, 2013 at 18:14

If you will recall, that organ of repute The Sun was negotiating to buy the hapless Alfie’s life story and the tale of his fatherhood until, a solicitor pointed out that The Sun would be committing a criminal act if it did- paying for tales of underaged sex etc.No prizes for correctly guessing who was the agent handling the sale at the time but if you said the name Max you would be correct.

Ho HumMay 10, 2013 at 22:36

‘Adolsecent sex isn’t generally dealt with by penalisation;

If all of this current stramash was merely about raking up the past of a few celebrities, and the press making its pile in destroying a few enemies, with a bit of money spinning collateral damage on others thrown in, before then making another pile pontificating about how wrong that might all have been, I would probably not be too bothered.

Given the lack of moral scruples the press demonstrated at Leveson, and before, none of that would be at all surprising. Indeed, if I was totally cynical, it might even be their strategic gameplan. They aren’t such fools as have forgotten the outcomes of the ‘Satanic Abuse’, Orkney, and Newcastle fiascos, and the melodramas resulting from the actions and advice of the so called ‘professional’ and ‘media’ ‘experts’ who then pontificated to every idiot that would listen, and how utterly useless, or just plain bonkers, they were proved to be subsequently

I’m much more worried about the future effect. I have spent a large portion of my life watching this type of moral panic being used to develop a head of steam, how the zealots behind these use them to campaign for their own ends, often just to suppress those whom they are personally prejudiced against, mislead the public, manipulate the media, produce doctored evidence, influence and confound other pressure groups, organisations, politicians and decision makers into supporting them, and push them into a corner from which publicly acceptable escape is untenable

It won’t matter if the ‘Savile Wos the Greatest Living Pervert’ edifice were all to crumble to dust at some future date. It will have served its purpose. The real problem is that what it is being used to breed is going to be germinate in somewhere between 6 to 10 years time, a point at which NOT prosecuting such adolescents will become something the CPS dare not do, and every pre AOC fumbling, no matter how long ago it happened or however consensual it was at the time at the time, will become punishable if one party raises an objection further down the line.

There will be be no one then who will dare to stop the resultant madness, and the increased damage it will do to this country’s young people’s already poor perception and appreciation of the rule of law in general will be incalculable.

Thus endeth today’s rant

Ho HumMay 10, 2013 at 22:49

Reading that again, I maybe should have said ‘thus endeth endeth’, just to keep up on the repetitions.

Whatever, the ‘date order’ of posts seems to have screwed up again. That was supposed to be a response to @ Moor Larkin May 10, 2013 at 13:29

Rocky Raccoon (no relation)May 11, 2013 at 07:09

Is one of the problems in all this that victims cannot accept there may not be enough evidence for a prosecution, in their eyes it becomes ‘they’ (usually the police) don’t believe me. Now we have the NSPCC etc saying a person is automatically a victim and must be believed no matter what the evidence, Operation Yewtree avoids the situation by not dismissing any of the 600 allegations and hinting that the 386 allegations with no crime attached to them may become crimes at a later stage, thus making it look like investigation is on going forever…crafty.

Excellent comment Wendi – nail hit squarely on the head.There appears to be an evil agenda to destroy the family unit in this country and replace that with the (Nanny) State.I would suggest there are in fact individuals at the heart of the ‘paedohysteria’ who have a twisted self-interest in the reversal of thousands of years of progression.What the hysteria has done is to redefine ‘paedeophilia’ – which is the sexual abuse of pre-pubescent children – into meaning, broadly, any sexual activity (be it penetrative sex or merely a lustful gaze) with any ‘young person’ – and the definition of ‘young person’ could mean 14, 17, 19 or 22 depending what ‘angle’ the media and/or police are looking for.For hundreds of years, men and women have lived as both sexual beings and responsible heads of families in perfect synergy – now women are being told they don’t need men, men are being told they are abhorrent perverts if, say, their heads are turned briefly by their 18 yr old daughters curvy friend – that kind of thing, and kids are being told ‘older people’ are untrustworthy deviants in every thought, word and deed. Sexual desire is to be repressed and denied, and self-hate and denial encouraged. Large families in less repressed nations are the antithesis of this madness.Look at the way things are worded in relation to the likes of Jimmy Savile and Stuart Hall – you will see much reference to “for (his) own sexual gratification” as if ‘sexual gratification’ is itself a terrible thing that all men should repress – presumably we should all see ‘sex’ solely as another form of altruism?

rabbitawayMay 12, 2013 at 12:50

My answer – “No proof no fee” or ” No investigation no compensation” – in short my polite answer to the thieving solicitors and their ‘clients’ would be to sod off – fight ’til the last penny and then some !

Claim back the expenses when Jimmy is found to be innocent and ruin the lot of them !

Dare I suggest Moor Larkin the best way to protect a 13 year old against being exploited is not the law but to give a child something of a moral education —using the usual tools of the humanities an important one of which is history. Law deals only in failures thats why lawyers are the carrion feeders of Society.

The purpose of the Age of Consent Law is simply to ensure that anyone under that age (whatever it is) can make a complaint about another person having sex with them, and have the presumption, in law, that they are the “innocent” party and that the other person has committed an offence. Back in 2003 one case in particular prompted the 21st Century revision of the laws, and it involved “internet grooming”. Back in the 90′s some guy wooed a girl on the internet, and when she was over 13, he arranged to meet her and had sex with her. It turned out that if he had had sex with her before she was 13 the maximum sentence was Life, but between 13 and 16 the judge only had three years to play with. The claim was made (possibly rightly) that the guy had explicitly waited until she was over 13 because at worst he’d only get three years.

This is the history that led to the laws changing in 2004 or so, and this is why that Music Teacher got six years recently for having sex with a 14 year-old……. thirty years ago, but thirty years ago the maximum would have been three years. Retrospective law can be a bitch.

LucozadeMay 10, 2013 at 13:46

Moor Larkin,

Re: “I would have an issue with my 13 year-old son being penetrated. Sorry. Sauce for the gander”

Girls seem to start and finish puberty a few years before boys though. Although ‘puberty’ doesn’t necessarily have a bearing on mental maturity i.e late developers are often just as bright or more so than earlier deveopers, it probably does effect how you view yourself.

I’m sure I thought of myself as an ‘adult’ when I was 13 though I knew I wasn’t legally allowed to move out etc until I was 16, quite possibly because that was what I saw I the mirror and I could do basic things for myself e.g cook, mend things i.e clothes etc, get myself up and ready for school in the morning (on time!). And I certainly would not have agreed to do something with someone if the thought did not appeal to me unless I felt it was nessecery (sometimes we have to do things we don’t always want to). Though I probably was easily influenced in someways – that state probably lasted until my mid twenties and I feel the best way to combat that is through experience and facing things head on. But I would never have done something I felt was bad or wrong, just because other people did or I was told to, I still had limits (not suggesting anal sex is wrong – just giving example to illustrate)….

In fact, in some ways I think I functioned better when I was 13 and had more discipline than I do now….

Pehaps there should be an easing in period (to adulthood), and 13 could perhaps be a smidge too young, but I don’t nessecerily find the idea preposterous or view 13 year olds as helpless ‘children’. You generally know as much as you are taught but at 13 I was capable of working things out for myself too….

Funny but I would have thought any changes in the law on the age of consent was an attempt to protect the exploitation of the young by legal positivism rather than dealing in legal presumptions —-exploitation is exploitation is exploitation —-lets not confuse mitigation or suggest that the criminal law somehow gets it right for each and every case —thats what judges are for. I find the law in this day and age hugely uninteresting having practiced it for some years —I see it as a tool presently used for social engineering rather than anything more profound. Those who loose faith in Society (and the laws it promulgates or the good and the great who control it) at any point in time have choices and I favour the Platonic view of the wise man who takes shelter in the lee of the wall when it rains and whilst my children are young I keep them with me —-try and tell them a bit about why its not such good weather and it ain’t so wise to play in the rain coz unless they are careful they might catch cold. Whats interesting about this site is I see a few who take something of a similar view about Society —–and that perhaps its raining —-but not all I think believe the weather is quite that bad or that unusual or one can catch cold unless one goes out reasonably well prepared coz they believe the weather forecasts on tele. Savile always struck me as someone one wouldn’t believe much about what he had to say though I hasten to say that doesn’t make him a pervDo I think the law protects? Somewhat.Do I think the law protects all adequately? NoCan it ever? DoubtfulSolution? Prevention by self help and that comes from understanding and that is knowledge based

Well Moor LarkinLet history be the judge of outcomes for our respective children.Whilst I will never be at ease that I have done all I should I am not unhopeful they are gonna get it more right than I did coz I reckon they are cleverer than I am —and I wish your children are cleverer than you —-no not disrespectful to your intellect —-rather wishing well to your children.

LucozadeMay 10, 2013 at 15:39

Moor Larkin,

Re: “It turned out that if he had had sex with her before she was 13 the maximum sentence was Life, but between 13 and 16 the judge only had three years to play with. The claim was made (possibly rightly) that the guy had explicitly waited until she was over 13 because at worst he’d only get three years”

That makes no sense to me at all, lol, I do not get their logic.

The sentencing was obviously set higher for before 13 because it was perceived to be a worse crime to sleep with someone under 13 than over 13 – he waited until she was over 13. Still against the law but I don’t understand their rational for changing the sentencing rules on the basis of that.

Tracked down the article I think. I might have jumbling stuff up a bit. It’s easily done when working purely from memory….. But I think the essence of historical truth is still there.

“The new offence has been created following concern over recent cases where ‘internet grooming’ has led to sexual assaults on children. Earlier this year, Andrew Lay, a 35-year-old from Milton Keynes, was jailed for six years for committing sexual offences against a young girl he first contacted through a chatroom when she was just 12. He led his victim to believe he was in his early 20s and communicated with her regularly over the Internet and through text messages. And last month, 36-year-old Michael Wheeler was jailed for three years for attacking two 13-year-old girls after befriending them via a chatroom. Wheeler exploited a loophole in the law by grooming his victims for several months but only sexually assaulting them once they had reached 13 – avoiding the tougher sentences attached to unlawful sex with children aged 12 or under. The new offence of sexual “grooming” will enable police officers to intervene and arrest a suspect before any sexual activity takes place.”http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3067607.stm

I shouldn’t hold your breath. This chappie appears to be a great favourite with ACPO. ACPO and itv called in the NSPCC before the Williams-Thomas show was ever broadcast. I doubt any of them fully grasped what a genie they were about to rub life into, but they aint gonna back down now are they.

Oh dear! “unfair, naive and irresponsible reporting” after Williams-Thomas claimed that the police were failing to conduct “certain routine inquiries”, such as sweeping the murder scene for evidence.Well spotted Mina!

I seem to recall from my digging into appendix 12 of Pollard that Surrey police gave MWT short shift when he first started nosing into the police investigation into Jimmy in 2008 (or was it 2007 – whatever ) and in the end it was a bod from the CPS who volunteered the information – that is the TRUE reason why that investigation went nowhere. MWT had very little input into events pre Newshite. He appears to have come into his own when ITN took up the case. He then went from bit player, used to be a cop so people will believe his shit, to front man presenter extraordinare. I have to smile when I remember was it Liz MacKean to the Pollard crew of MWT’s credentials, that he was ‘very big’ in ‘child protection’ …….

Sending your Superintendent a long missive telling him how everyone in the force is doing everything wrong, and ‘why don’t they listen to you’ is not the recommended way to make friends and influence superiors……especially when you only been in the CID division for a few months…

I’m not surprised he decided to make contact via the media office when he was on his £500 mission to find out whether there was ever a previous investigation into Duncroft. I guess even a dimwit could imagine the reaction he would have got from his ex-colleagues…

Mina FieldMay 9, 2013 at 13:15

@Anna RaccoonHe wasn’t even a detective when he sent the ill-advised letter – and yes, he clearly always had ideas well above his station, and its no surprise that he ended up leaving the force one way or another – reg 9 letter and resignation is my guess, actually.

The redactions in the Pollard report indicate to me that the one person at Surrey police whom he did eventually manage to get an answer from was a name already known to reporters. Probably an officer or ex officer with a history of doing favours.

rabbitawayMay 9, 2013 at 13:29

Yes Anna I just read your link to the 2002 article about Milly D in the telegraph 2002. I see they describe him as having left the force 18 months previously and that he was a Det’ Constable. Well, someone help me out here, is a DC not just a Detective in training ? They also refer to him being one of Surrey police’s ‘leading paedophile specialist’s’, surely someone is exaggerating here ?

Mina FieldMay 9, 2013 at 13:35

@rabbitaway

No, a detective constable is a constable who has moved across to CID. These days they take an investigator’s course and then can call themselves a detective. I think the training is stuff like learning to use google and a telephone directory.

‘The refusal of the Wilsons to make themselves the centre of the story has certainly contributed to the lower profile of the case – later on they refused to appear on a game show where the audience would have been given the chance to vote for the next course of action taken by the family in the search for their daughter.’Please please please tell me you are making this up !!!!!!

I am trying to find out more about MWT’s previous company – the one that is classed as ‘dormant’ – it was called matterstome LTD his latest endeavour (WT associates) was formed out of this – anyone up for that challenge

He so likes poking his nose into other peoples’ lives ….. doesn’t he ?

Mina FieldMay 9, 2013 at 13:10

@rabbitaway

I too spent some time once, looking at that company. I’m not sure what you’re seeking to find but all I found was that it was a venture with his wife, (also ex PC) Karen Williams-Thomas, and they seemed to be trying to sell their video, starring Julie Walters, to schools. Said video is still on youtube somewhere. It warns that teenagers might well meet up with someone on the internet who isn’t what he claims to be. whopee-do. Like internet-savvy kids don’t know more about trolls than MWT and wife will ever know.

rabbitawayMay 9, 2013 at 13:34

@Mina Field – thanks – I’m just covering all bases so to speak and I’m sure there’s plenty of rocks to turn over ; )

WendiMay 9, 2013 at 16:02

Are there no Posters here on this site who are/were Barristers, QCs or the like that must surely be able to get the requested information somehow? Personally I’d just like to know how long he was on the police force and how long (if at all) he was a ‘detective’. It appears the Freedom of Information Act is a tad limited in its ‘Freedom of Information’!

What a self-important prat this man is, fomented by the irresponsible MSM of course – I still can’t understand how that Exposure piece on Savile warranted a bloody award – it was heresay, unsubstantiated and, sorry to reiterate but, bloody boring.

Barbara Hewson’s expositions seemed perfectly cogent to me. I love MWT’s comment “…Babara Hewston… She makes such statements that surely warrant some professional body intervention.” – tut, tut – naughty boy, that kind of statement cannot be good for business!

Mina FieldMay 9, 2013 at 18:44

@WendiIts not a case of who’s asking – status plays no part in it – its having a reason that compels the disclosure.No, it would be for him to come clean and tell the truth about why he left. And for all that he likes talking about himself he doesn’t talk about that, for some reason.

MarinerFan1970May 9, 2013 at 11:33

As someone who has only just come across your website can I just say – what an oasis of reasoned and evidence-based calm it is when compared to the paranoid and frenzied tabloid/media driven lunacy that seems to have been ladled out to the public in the past few months with regard to alleged celebrity child-molesters; it seems things have regressed to a situation like something from Medieval times when the accusation was everything and evidence counted for nothing.

With regard to the Matthew Hopkins figure in all this (self-styled “criminogist” “child-protection expert” and ex-detective -for all of one year) Williams-Thomas seems to be only interested in stoking his own ego (and no doubt bank balance) with his accusations and innuendos about this aged celebrities; (incidentally, are there no celebrity paedophiles under the age of 60 in the UK or are Williams-Thomas/the NSPCC/Operation Yewtree et al a bit scared of airing the names of people who might be a) still popular with the public b) still vigorous enough to make a robust defence of themselves and c) not dead and there able to sue a la Lord McAlpine if needs be) It also interesting that if the victims don’t play ball (such as the Wilson family) they’ll be dropped like a hot potato as they don’t serve the needs of the accusers and their supporters any more.

Hope I haven’t rambled on to long (first post I’ve ever done and all that!) but it’s nice to see that there are like minded people on here who don’t swallow all the cobblers that is dished up by Williams-Thomas and his like and keep an open and inquisitive mind!

Ramble as long as you like, most of us on here are either searching for true evidence – for every time we are handed something alleging it is ‘evidence’ it seems to trickle out between our fingers like drops of water; or we are searching for reasons as to why the main stream media is so keen to promote the current collection of allegations as ‘truth’.

We are baffled and happy to listen to all theories as to what is going on.

MarinerFan1970May 9, 2013 at 14:47

Thanks Anna!

My own theory (for what it’s worth) is that, after the police and the CPS got serious egg on their faces with their bungling of a number of child sex abuse cases (especially the Rochdale one which was ignored for a number of years) they needed something to improve their public persona and make it look like they knew what they were doing! As if by magic, up pops the late Sir Jimmy Savile from beyond the grave and suddenly there are a welter of allegations based upon which the police can show that they are on the victims’ side against the evil establishment pervs.

It’s also interesting that a lot of the running with regards to charging and prosecution is being made in the North West (Hall, La Vell, Roache) where the Chief Crown Prosecutor, Nazir Afzal, has put a very public figure in all these cases. This was the chap who took over the Rochdale case after the previous debacle and, I think, is keen to make a name for himself.

In fact, there seem to be a number of people who are keen to make a name for themselves in all this – Williams-Thomas, Afzal, Commander Spindler to name but three – and plenty of other people who just want revenge, 15 minutes of fame or money (or a combination thereof). I feel sorry for Barbara Hewston; she’s stuck her head above the parapet and now the keyboard vigilantes will be looking for their pound of virtual flesh before throwing her on a digital bonfire in true Vincent Price style!

Interesting that it is once again a woman who sticks her head above the parapet – although in my case I can be categorically sure that no 60 year old female misfit is going to emerge from the shadows claiming that I seduced her at age 13 or any other age…

Whereas the men have to take into account that they may be targeted if they step out of line!

MarinerFan1970May 9, 2013 at 15:24

Quite so ! Any chap making the remarks that Barbara Hewston has made would immediately be targeted as a paedophile in hiding; as it is she gets a heap of misogynistic abuse (” you can tell she doesn’t have children” etc) as well as a proponent of child sex. I think her reference to the age of consent refers to the current law whereby sex with an under 13 is rape and sex with a child over 13 but under the current age of consent (16) isn’t automatically treated as such depending on the circumstances and the various case law that flows from that; my legal knowledge is a little rusty so I may have not got that quite right but I think that’s the rationale behind what she’s saying. However, it certainly doesn’t mean that she trying to smooth the path for any would-be Saviles out there …..

The other thing in amongst all this hysteria about celebrity paedophiles and well-connected child molestation rings is that the truth is, of course, more mundane and in may ways even sadder; children are infinitely more likely to be abused by a family member, friend, neighbour or acquaintance (a Mark Bridger or a Stuart Hazell) than they are by a Jimmy Savile or Stuart Hall but in the vast majority of cases the names can’t be published (if they are related) or the details aren’t salacious enough for the media to latch onto. That’s why I think this current farrago does such a disservice to the real child abuse victims out there – it says that, unless your abuser is famous or you can weave it into some sort of David Icke-esque conspiracy, then you probably won’t get the attention you need and deserve – which is the real tragedy in all this farce.

MarinerFan1970May 9, 2013 at 15:33

Oops – typo on line 2 – should be “and is accused of being a proponent….”

Duncan DisorderlyMay 9, 2013 at 11:29

MWT seems to have had an impressive career (“leading paedophile specialist”, according to the Telegraph). Apparently, he worked on the Sarah Payne inquiry as well as that of Jonathan King. Gosh, he was busy in 2000, wasn’t he? When did he leave the force?http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6930815.stm

1950“I have here in my hand a list of 205 . . . a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department. . . .”http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6456/

If the authorities can no longer say in sexual abuse cases that no crime was committed or there was not enough evidence, how do the claims lawyers explain their own refusal to persue matters and seek justice?

A prominent media friendly female money grabbing lawyer, who’s law firm is mentioned every time she speaks, said of Stuart Hall and his assets…

“….. moving the ownership of a property into the name of a spouse makes it less attractive for solicitors to want to take up a civil claim. She added: ‘If someone is suing a litigant in person it is normal that you would look into their means before you would make a decision whether or not to prosecute. ‘You have to make a very practical decision because whilst you might win you might never be able to enforce the judgement.’”